Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: forastero's thread started by Wesley R. Elsberry


Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 21 2011,05:55

People who can't manage topicality elsewhere can always be topical in a thread devoted to them.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 21 2011,06:06

Does "forastero" want to talk about < punctuated equilibria >?
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 21 2011,06:20

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 21 2011,12:06)
Does "forastero" want to talk about < punctuated equilibria >?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only as part of a pantheist communist mode of belief designed to destroy free markets and oppress designers, you Freemason.

Or something.

Louis
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 21 2011,07:47

Quote (forastero @ sometime)


Ha..so you feel my busting rhymes about divine designs was nice but plagiarized? Nice try but that lie dont fly. So recheck your cite big guy

You say puncuated equilibrium via solar radiation (sun god) zapped a bacteria into a mitochondria that eventually turned into horseflies, raccoons, T. rex, and baboons but we say orderly miraculous design.

We IDers havnt figured it all out just yet but you have to admit that 99.9 percent of the greatest scientists believed in ID
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here, let's get the party started.

That last quote is very interesting.  So, what you are saying (and correct me if I'm wrong), is that everything is designed.  Everything from the stars to the planets, to the tiny bacteria and viruses that infect our designed bodies and render them useless.

If that is the case, then we are at an impass and no science can be done.  The reason is that if everything is directly designed, then there should be no patterns in anything in the universe to observe.  Every solar system could have their own unique set of Kepler's Laws.  Every organism could have a radically different macromolecular system.

The FACT that we don't see this and instead observe distinct patterns that come from physical laws that are constant throughout the known universe tends to lead us to the conclusion that these natural laws are the designer.

If you are willing to accept that 'The Designer' ™ is actually the natural laws of the universe, then I'm willing to accept that.

If you are not willing to accept that, then the only logical conclusion is that 'The Designer'™ is trying to hide its existence from us.

Fortunately, the ID people are willing to help the designer hide by expressly refusing to even consider the designer, much less look for evidence that supports him.

I am afraid, that you don't have a clue about how the world works.  You appear to be stuck in the late 1400s, when a statement to the church would be taken as absolute truth, up to and including the torture and death by torture of the subject of the statement.  

Since then, however, there was this movement we call The Enlightenment.  During this movement, some members of the species to which you may or may not belong, began to use these powerful computing organs called brains.  They worked out a series of steps that could only be true.  They called this 'logic'.

Then they worked out a system for determining the answers to questions where logic didn't work so good.  They called this process the scientific method.  Now, given that everything that has been invented in the modern world is a product of the scientific method, I would venture to say that it works, as a system for knowing, pretty well.

You however, (hypocritically) say that the scientific method doesn't work.  I say 'hypocritically' because you are using tools and processes developed by the scientific method to deny that the scientific method works.

I know that you are attempting to only talk about biology, but what is biology founded on? Chemistry.  What is chemistry founded on?  Physics.  What is physics founded on?  The fundamental laws of the universe that were discovered using the scientific method.

So basically, what you are attempting to not say is that you believe that all the knowledge, tools, and processes developed by man in the last 200 years don't actually work.

The reason you say this is because you don't like the implications for your pet deity.  However, one of the hallmarks of the scientific method, which you seem to know as you have made demands of us, is that of evidence.

Yet you (again, hypocritically) demand a level of evidence from us, that you cannot provide about your own, competing notions.  In fact, you refuse to even talk about your own notions, just that ours (backed up by mountains of evidence) are wrong.

Let me explain in the simplest terms I can.

Even if you prove evolution, chemistry, and physics wrong.  It still doesn't mean your designer exists.

Yet you and your ilk refuse to even speculate*, much less seek evidence.  Why is that?

Given the above, I am at your service to discuss with you the topic of your choice.  

If you have evidence for the designer, then, I'm sure, we would all be thrilled to hear it.



__

* Everyone knows of course, that the designer is God.  It is expressly stated by every single one of the main ID proponents.  It is in their writings and speeches.  Yet, when confronted by science or courts, they try to refute that.  Unfortunately for them, there is as much evidence for God as there is for Intelligent Design of living things.
Posted by: Kristine on Oct. 21 2011,10:37

Most of the world's greatest scientists were creationists. So what? They were also sexist, moneyed, white males pursuing what was then a hobby.

Darwin was a creationist bound for the seminary at one time. Something (actually a series of things) changed his mind.

If everything is designed, then Behe's "we can distinguish design from non-design, Mount Rushmore versus mountains" argument collapses.

(shug)
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 21 2011,10:40

Ogre,

We didnt say that "everything is designed"

Even though life is designed by the same molecular building blocks that makes up "the earth", there are still radically different molecular systems. On the other hand, similarities do not at all dismiss design either.

Kepler was another creationist who's inspirations are still being built upon but we still to this day do not understand the laws of solar systems to their fullest and you probably never will.

Like the Woodstock era of music, the enlightenment was a spiritual inspiration that was both used and abused but creationists did the greater works by far.  The Baconian "scientific method" was also termed by a creationists and I have never dismissed it except when its abused, especially in Nazi styles.

No one including most scientists need to fully understand rocket science in order to recognized that rockets are designed and ID abides by KISS or Occam's (also a creationist) Razor, the Scientific Method, and the Laws of Nature; but the theory of evolution does not. For instance:

ID--superior designer made order from disorder

Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly made some primordial soup spontaneously generate into a bacteria-like critter that accidentally turned in to all kinds of other creatures by some punctuated solar radiation

ID--An elaborately designed endocrine system that purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli

Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they happen to occur at just the right time and niche
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 21 2011,10:44

Hmm..Keeping me confined like a caged King Kong
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 21 2011,10:52

more like a retard on a leash, it looks to me.

werner von braun, heard of him?  he invented your precious rocket.
Posted by: rossum on Oct. 21 2011,11:01

So, lets have a closer look.
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
For instance:

ID--superior designer made order from disorder

Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly made some primordial soup spontaneously generate into a bacteria-like critter that accidentally turned in to all kinds of other creatures by some punctuated solar radiation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Was your "superior designer" disordered?  If so then you are making order from disorder, which is what you are claiming cannot be done by evolution.

Was your "superior designer" ordered?  If so then where did that order come from, how did it originate?  Was there an even more superior "superior designer" designer to create that order?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID--An elaborately designed endocrine system that purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli

Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they happen to occur at just the right time and niche
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evolution does not rely on miracles, that is the province of creationists.  Do some calculations on the size of populations and the number of mutations an individual carries.  The appearance of a specific mutation is not that unlikely over a few generations.

rossum
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 21 2011,11:09

forastero:

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
ID--superior designer made order from disorder
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Thermodynamics was discovered by designers (humans) and found that there were some laws (the second in particular) that say this is not possible.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Oct. 21 2011,11:25

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip>
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?

How can genes make mistakes?
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 21 2011,11:34

Yeah explosions are normally destroyers but this  big bang lead to order-thus order from disorder via order



See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 21 2011,11:37

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,11:25)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip>
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?

How can genes make mistakes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 21 2011,11:44

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:40)
The Baconian "scientific method" was also termed by a creationists and I have never dismissed it except when its abused, especially in Nazi styles.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Moron >.


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 21 2011,11:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



D00D HAVE YOU LIKE I MEAN YOU KNOW LIKE REALLY LIKE, YOU KNOW, LOOKED AT YOUR HAND, MAN
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 21 2011,11:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



ahh yes the ideal free genetic state.  how you doing, Joe?
Posted by: Robin on Oct. 21 2011,11:56

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:34)
Yeah explosions are normally destroyers but this  big bang lead to order-thus order from disorder via order


See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uuhh...you do realize that the Big Bang was not an explosion, but rather an expansion, right?

Oh...nevermind. Apparently you don't.

Of course, even if it had been, your claim would be erroneous. The Big Bang did not create order; gravity (among other forces) did.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Oct. 21 2011,12:02

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:37)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,11:25)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip>
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?

How can genes make mistakes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go back up and read the questions again.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 21 2011,12:14

one stupid meeting and I miss all the fun.
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Oct. 21 2011,12:21

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 06 2011,05:28)
The practice of science involves formulating hypothesis that can be tested for falsifiability via observed data. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,04:02)
We IDers havnt figured it all out just yet but you have to admit that 99.9 percent of the greatest scientists believed in ID
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How did they use ID - or is ID useless for doing science?  I won't ague about the 99.9% or who was/wasn't an IDer - I'll just note that they weren't expelled, and that their work is taught in public school.  You claim the vast majority of the greatest scientists, yet ID is a threadbare set of vague notions and your martyr complex is a sad little fiction used to sell movies and books to the gullible.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 21 2011,12:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ogre,

We didnt say that "everything is designed"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Excellent.  So some things are designed and some things are not.

Please provide an example and cite the evidence that you used to draw this conclusion.

Note that "It is complex." and "It looks designed." are not evidence.  They are cop-outs.

I can provide dozens of examples of insanely complex structures and systems that were not designed.  I can also provide systems and structures that look as if they were designed, but they were not designed.

If you make the claim that they really are designed, then you are making the claim that everything was designed.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even though life is designed by the same molecular building blocks that makes up "the earth", there are still radically different molecular systems. On the other hand, similarities do not at all dismiss design either.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'll assume you're talking about biomacromolecules here.  What's very interesting is, in all the cases that have been studied in detail, we can actually track the changes over time, showing how small 'accidents' (your language, not mine), build up over time and result in radically different molecular systems.

Here's an analogy that actually works.  A Dachshund is a dog right?  Canis familaris right?  A Great Dane is a dog, right?  Same species right... and yet radically different.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Kepler was another creationist who's inspirations are still being built upon but we still to this day do not understand the laws of solar systems to their fullest and you probably never will.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Kepler, in spite of being a creationist, still used the scientific method and evidence to observe the laws that govern planetary motion.  He used math to codify those laws.

ID proponents have done none of this type of work.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like the Woodstock era of music, the enlightenment was a spiritual inspiration that was both used and abused but creationists did the greater works by far.  The Baconian "scientific method" was also termed by a creationists and I have never dismissed it except when its abused, especially in Nazi styles.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can I just say "WTF"?  

I think I understand the problem though.  You are conflating modern creationists with historical creationists who actually understood how to do science.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No one including most scientists need to fully understand rocket science in order to recognized that rockets are designed and ID abides by KISS or Occam's (also a creationist) Razor, the Scientific Method, and the Laws of Nature; but the theory of evolution does not. For instance:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting.  

Honestly, I think you are mostly correct here.  But, of course, that completely destroys your entire 'designed' argument.

Evolution (speaking anthropomorphically, which is incorrect, but I'll assume you understand) cannot use engineering principles, because it can't start over with a clean slate, like an intelligent designer can.

Evolution can't "keep it simple" because it has to use systems that are already in place and modify them only.

Evolution, of course, can't use the scientific method... that's a human construct.  But it does explore, it does test (without thinking about the results).  Like genetic algorithms, evolution changes things randomly and then tests the results in the real world against some fitness requirement.  If the organism doesn't meet this minimum requirement, then it dies, probably without leaving offspring.  If it does, then it's fitness can be compared to other offspring by judging how many offspring it creates and (occasionally) raises to reproductive age.

Although, I will say that NOTHING doesn't obey the Laws of Nature.  Anything, by definition, that does not obey the laws of nature is... supernatural... which, BTW, is what science expressly does not investigate.

So, thanks for eviscerating your own argument.  Shame, you didn't realize it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

ID--superior designer made order from disorder

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



evidence please...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly made some primordial soup spontaneously generate into a bacteria-like critter that accidentally turned in to all kinds of other creatures by some punctuated solar radiation


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More evidence you don't really understand what's going on.  Once a living thing is created, then it begins to evolve.  Some definitions of life even have a requirement for life evolving.

Let's talk about chance a second.  Let's say there's a trillion to one chance of something happening.  That's a lot right?  Until you realize that there are something like 5 billion bacteria in a GRAM of soil.  In a metric ton of soil, there can be something like 500 trillion bacteria.  So, in a  metric ton of soil, your trillion to one chance... happens 500 times every generation.  oops.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------




ID--An elaborately designed endocrine system that purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



again I say 'huh'?  You really want to claim this sentence... that our endocrine system selects phenotypes?  Really?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they happen to occur at just the right time and niche

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's see, I can point out a non-miraculous genetic 'mistake'* that just happens to increase the survival rate of the owner by 95% in certain environmental situations.

Of course, if the death rate the this mistake prevents is close to 100% (and it is), then take a guess at what the genotype of the offspring will be (assuming you know how to figure this stuff out).

Here's a hint: cross a heterozygote with a homozygote for the trait.  Eliminate any offspring that are homozygous dominant.  Cross the resulting offspring (you pick two).  repeat 3 or four times.  How many homozygous dominants do you have?  How many heterzygotes do you have?



__
* Because scientists know exactly when it occurred, where it occurred, and how.
Posted by: Kristine on Oct. 21 2011,17:34

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:34)
Yeah explosions are normally destroyers but this  big bang lead to order-thus order from disorder via order

[snip image]

See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait a minute. You actually think that the deliberate misnomer "Big Bang" (Hoyle) refers to an actual explosion?

I get that a lot.
Posted by: Cubist on Oct. 21 2011,21:03

I second Ogre's remarks above: If you're not claiming that everything is Designed, you must be claiming that some things are Designed and other things are not Designed... so how do you tell the difference? Given some arbitrarily-chosen whatzit, how can you tell whether said whatzit is, or is not, Designed?
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 21 2011,22:14

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 21 2011,11:56)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:34)
Yeah explosions are normally destroyers but this  big bang lead to order-thus order from disorder via order


See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uuhh...you do realize that the Big Bang was not an explosion, but rather an expansion, right?

Oh...nevermind. Apparently you don't.

Of course, even if it had been, your claim would be erroneous. The Big Bang did not create order; gravity (among other forces) did.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now you believe gravity created all that order presented in that image ?


Rumsfeld, first of all Guth and most others claim that the Big Bang went through initial hyperinflation and super symmetry but has slowed drastically partly do to gravity and entropy. However, a mysterious dark energy "seems" to be making the galaxy accelerate. Some scientist are bringing up relativity in that it only appears to accelerate from our vantage point but in my layman's view its kinda like a bullet picking up velocity as it leaves the barrel but finally slowing due to not only gravity but also entropy in that the energy behind the bullet becomes unorganized somewhat like accuracy; but then at a certain threshold, not only is gravity diminished but that energy that became unorganized earlier, is now concentrated once again as if the bullet suddenly went through a separate explosion. Some hypothesize that multiple supernovas are behind this dark energy but I am inclined to credit it to supernatural events.

Now concerning your insistence that the Big Bang explosion was a metaphor, it seems few scientists agree with you. For instance:

The first minutes of the titanic explosion (Inflation theory): But how are the elements in the universe formed? The scientist “Alan Guth” answered this questions as he discovered another theory which is the ‘inflation theory’, and it was accepted by every scientist, and in this theory he explained the first 3 minutes after the titanic explosion, according to this theory the titanic explosion followed by a huge fireball in an extreme temperature after one part from many millions parts of a second, the temperature decreased to 1022 K, where the fundamental bodies is formed and after 10- 6 seconds the ‘singularity’ became as big as a solar system (it’s radius is 588 x 1010 ),when the temperature became 109 K the radiation became to be emitted after the first second the reaction stopped but universe is still expending until now. The “inflation” theory is considered very important because we knew the 1st minutes after the “Titanic explosion”, and it’s very mysterious explosion because it’s not such a normal explosion to the matter in space but it was the explosion of space itself. < http://library.thinkquest.org/C005731....th.html >


Alan Guth: We do have a number of pieces of information that we can put together to try use as a basis for constructing theories. Observations about the distributions of galaxies within the visible part of the universe, and the motions of galaxies. Also now very important are observations of the cosmic background radiation — radiation that we believe is the afterglow of the big bang’s explosion itself. < http://www.thefullwiki.org/Alan_Gu....an_Guth >

The birth of a new universe also does not affect the old one. It would take about 10?37 seconds to disconnect from its parent. However, all an observer would see is the formation of a black hole, which would disappear very quickly. Creating a new universe actually would be quite dangerous since it would result in the release of energy similar to that of a 500 kiloton explosion. < http://www.thefullwiki.org/Alan_Gu....an_Guth >

An answer came in 1979 when physicist Alan Guth proposed that, just after the primal explosion, the universe temporarily kicked into overdrive and began wildly expanding, doubling and doubling and doubling again. This inflationary epoch lasted the tiniest fraction of a second. But according to the calculations, this was enough to even out the radiation and flatten the curvature — to smooth out the wrinkles in the Big Bang. The Cosmological constant was back. < http://www.hbci.com/~wenona....ang.htm >


Today, the researchers who make up the Grand Challenge Cosmology Consortium (GC3) harness the power of supercomputers to look at the birth and infancy of the universe, starting from the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which is believed to have started it all about 15 billion years ago. GC3 is a collaboration between cosmologists, astrophysicists, and computer scientists studying the formation of large-scale cosmological structure. < http://www.nsf.gov/news....ers.jsp >

Readhead, with Caltech colleagues Steve Padin and Timothy Pearson and others from Canada, Chile and the United States, generated the finest measurements to date of the cosmic microwave background. Cosmic microwave background (CMB) is a record of the first photons that escaped from the rapidly cooling, coalescing universe about 300,000 years after the cosmic explosion known as the Big Bang that is commonly believed to have given birth to the universe. < http://www.nsf.gov/od....241.htm >

According to current estimates, it burst into being 13.7 billion years ago in a titanic explosion called the Big Bang, with the galaxies congealing out of the cooling debris.
< http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science....ed.html >

About 13.7 billion years ago, the Universe burst into being in a titanic explosion called the Big Bang. Out of the expanding and cooling debris eventually congealed the galaxies, great islands of stars of which our own Milky Way is one. < http://royalsociety.org/news....ig-bang >

Eminent Scientist George Gamow and other scientists believe that Big Bang was a nuclear explosion. Gamow with his collaborators Ralph Alpher, Robert Hermann and James W. Follin, explored how chemical elements like helium and lithium could have been produced out of primordial hydrogen by thermonuclear reactions during the Big Bang. George Gamow put forward a hot Big Bang model in which primordial substance, or ylem, from which all other matter was created was an extraordinarily hot, dense singularity that exploded in a "Big Bang" and has been expanding ever since. < http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/in...sm....undance >

The term primordial fireball refers to this early time in the Universe. As the Universe continued to expand, its temperature and density dropped, allowing for the formation of atoms. This is known as the 'epoch of recombination', and it was at this time that photons could travel freely throughout the Universe for the first time. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) is the record of these photons at the moment of their escape. < http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos....ireball >

About 3 seconds after the Big Bang, nucleosynthesis set in with protons and neutrons beginning to form the nuclei of simple elements, predominantly hydrogen and helium, yet for the first 100,000 years after the initial hot explosion there was no matter of the form we know today. < http://www.thebigview.com/spaceti....se.html >
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 21 2011,22:23

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,12:02)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:37)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,11:25)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip>
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?

How can genes make mistakes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go back up and read the questions again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wayne, the sins of mankind are known to mess with our genes big time via pollution, drugs, outbreaks, STDs, atmospheric degradation, etc etc..
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 21 2011,22:32

Ogre, it seems you have somehow quoted our dialogue a bit out of context but oh well



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
again I say 'huh'?  You really want to claim this sentence... that our endocrine system selects phenotypes?  Really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course! It’s the basis of adaptation




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Excellent.  So some things are designed and some things are not.

Please provide an example and cite the evidence that you used to draw this conclusion.

Note that "It is complex." and "It looks designed." are not evidence.  They are cop-outs.

I can provide dozens of examples of insanely complex structures and systems that were not designed.  I can also provide systems and structures that look as if they were designed, but they were not designed.

If you make the claim that they really are designed, then you are making the claim that everything was designed.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------




There are designs and derivatives of design but even the derivatives are implemented into the grand scheme of things. Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll assume you're talking about biomacromolecules here.  What's very interesting is, in all the cases that have been studied in detail, we can actually track the changes over time, showing how small 'accidents' (your language, not mine), build up over time and result in radically different molecular systems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



With all these so called mutations and all this genetic knowledge, you would think that a few “innate” Nucleotide manipulations could turn a fruit fly into something other than a fruit fly; or bacteria into something other than bacteria. Your priest must of felt these phylogenies and/or molecular clock were like brail for the blind because its science  grossly racked with fraud and circular reasoning.  




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's an analogy that actually works.  A Dachshund is a dog right?  Canis familaris right?  A Great Dane is a dog, right?  Same species right... and yet radically different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That’s not mutation but rather domestic manipulation of preexisting ancestral phenotypes



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
evidence please...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I will even skip the thousands of renowned creationists quotes from the likes of Faraday, Newton, Pasteur from enlightenment and after and cite your favorite secularist

Einstein: "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

Einstein: “God always takes the simplest way”.

Einstein: “That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

Einstein: Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)

Einstein: What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)

Einstein: “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”

Einstein:"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Einstein: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the unlimitable superior who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Interesting.  

Honestly, I think you are mostly correct here.  But, of course, that completely destroys your entire 'designed' argument.

Evolution (speaking anthropomorphically, which is incorrect, but I'll assume you understand) cannot use engineering principles, because it can't start over with a clean slate, like an intelligent designer can.

Evolution can't "keep it simple" because it has to use systems that are already in place and modify them only.

Evolution, of course, can't use the scientific method... that's a human construct.  But it does explore, it does test (without thinking about the results).  Like genetic algorithms, evolution changes things randomly and then tests the results in the real world against some fitness requirement.  If the organism doesn't meet this minimum requirement, then it dies, probably without leaving offspring.  If it does, then it's fitness can be compared to other offspring by judging how many offspring it creates and (occasionally) raises to reproductive age.

Although, I will say that NOTHING doesn't obey the Laws of Nature.  Anything, by definition, that does not obey the laws of nature is... supernatural... which, BTW, is what science expressly does not investigate.

So, thanks for eviscerating your own argument.  Shame, you didn't realize it.

Let's see, I can point out a non-miraculous genetic 'mistake'* that just happens to increase the survival rate of the owner by 95% in certain environmental situations.

Of course, if the death rate the this mistake prevents is close to 100% (and it is), then take a guess at what the genotype of the offspring will be (assuming you know how to figure this stuff out).

Here's a hint: cross a heterozygote with a homozygote for the trait.  Eliminate any offspring that are homozygous dominant.  Cross the resulting offspring (you pick two).  repeat 3 or four times.  How many homozygous dominants do you have?  How many heterzygotes do you have?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That’s why its more appropriate to say evolutionism because your scenario is based on faith and/or pseudoscience.  For instance, sickle cell anemia and enzyme eating bacteria are at least somewhat of a negative trait that doesnt even come close to explaining any evolution into a new species. Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 21 2011,22:49

Shit.

Why are you still here?

Disappear by crawling up your asshole. You are half-way there already.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 21 2011,23:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



that about sums this horseshit up in a nutshell
Posted by: fnxtr on Oct. 22 2011,01:06

(shrug) So, Bozo Joe thought up a new nym. (shrug)

SSDD.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 22 2011,03:26

The request of "evidence please" was made in a context that "forastero" ignores:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

ID--superior designer made order from disorder

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The quotes from Einstein are opinion, not evidence. In fact, the repeated theme of "deeply emotional conviction" is a big clue that even Einstein was aware that he wasn't offering evidence. Of course, people used to proof-texting get quite confused when running into a scientific discussion where quoting an authority's opinion doesn't further an argument.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 22 2011,06:55

So Einstein used "designer-ish" language/believed in Spinozan deism therefore Jesus?

Great well that's that settled. Pub anyone?

Oh wait...

...maybe there are a few missing steps in your reasoning. I'm wondering if you'd accept the argument "Bertrand Russell did not use "designer-ish" language/did not believe in Spinozan deism therefore no Jesus". I'm guessing not. Perhaps reflect on why.

Louis
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 22 2011,08:38

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:14)
explosions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude,

Explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, the difference between hyper-inflation and a matter/anti-matter explosion.

If you can't do this, then you don't understand what scientists are talking about.

I'll add that when a scientist is talking (much like we're doing here), the scientist must reduce the technical language and use more common words that the listeners understand so as not to confuse the listeners and not to bore them.  Unfortunately, this often reduces the accuracy of the statements by the scientists... which is then quote-mine fodder for jerks like you who don't understand (or don't care) that they are taking things out of context.

For example, I have often used the word explosion in referring to the Big Bang... to 3rd graders.  After that, I use inflation, often demonstrating with a balloon.

If you really want to talk cosmology, then let's talk about it, but let's talk about it using the actual terms and technical language.  If you can't do that, then you have no business using it as any kind of argument because you don't understand it.

To continue, please explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what symmetry breaking is, in context of the early universe.  Explain why it's important and the role the both inflation and gravity may have played in it.

Again, if you can't do that, then I really suggest you quit using words that you don't understand.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 22 2011,09:07

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:32)
Ogre, it seems you have somehow quoted our dialogue a bit out of context but oh well

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Assertion.  Evidence Please.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
again I say 'huh'?  You really want to claim this sentence... that our endocrine system selects phenotypes?  Really?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course! It’s the basis of adaptation

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Assertion.  Evidence Please.

And really.  Please explain exactly what the ENDOCRINE system is and how it SELECTS phenotypes.

For extra points, please explain what a phenotype is.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Excellent.  So some things are designed and some things are not.

Please provide an example and cite the evidence that you used to draw this conclusion.

Note that "It is complex." and "It looks designed." are not evidence.  They are cop-outs.

I can provide dozens of examples of insanely complex structures and systems that were not designed.  I can also provide systems and structures that look as if they were designed, but they were not designed.

If you make the claim that they really are designed, then you are making the claim that everything was designed.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------




There are designs and derivatives of design but even the derivatives are implemented into the grand scheme of things. Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



OK, you have got to be a Poe.

Assertion, evidence please.

BTW: 'poo' as you so eloquently describe it, is material that is indigestible by whatever organism is ejecting it.  Interestingly, many things are indigestible, because the organism has lost the ability to digest that material due to mutation.  Oops.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'll assume you're talking about biomacromolecules here.  What's very interesting is, in all the cases that have been studied in detail, we can actually track the changes over time, showing how small 'accidents' (your language, not mine), build up over time and result in radically different molecular systems.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



With all these so called mutations and all this genetic knowledge, you would think that a few “innate” Nucleotide manipulations could turn a fruit fly into something other than a fruit fly; or bacteria into something other than bacteria. Your priest must of felt these phylogenies and/or molecular clock were like brail for the blind because its science  grossly racked with fraud and circular reasoning.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You might think that, but that only shows how clueless you are about what mutation is and what a genome is.

Consider the human genome.  3 billion pairs of nucleotides, approximately 1.5% of which codes for proteins.  The chimpanzee genome differs by about 1.23%.  So, when you do some math...

The human genome differs from our nearest relative by 33 million changes.  So, as an estimate, you need about 33 million changes from one organism to another.  This varies among organisms of course.  

You, and other creationists, are the only people who actually think something like this should be possible in evolutionary theory.

It's called a straw-man attack and, as a rhetorical device, it can be effective.  In a forum like this, not so much.

I would encourage you to learn about what scientists actually say about evolution... not what creationists have quoted them saying, but their actual peer-reviewed papers.

BTW: We all note that this is STILL an attack on evolution and NOT evidence for design.  Evidence for design please.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's an analogy that actually works.  A Dachshund is a dog right?  Canis familaris right?  A Great Dane is a dog, right?  Same species right... and yet radically different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That’s not mutation but rather domestic manipulation of preexisting ancestral phenotypes

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Assertion.  Evidence please.

BTW: I can, in cats, point to a mutation, that results in a different phenotype.  We know where it happened, when it happened, and which organism had the specific mutation.  That mutation has carried through to a completely new breed of cat.

BTW2: I note that you didn't mention the use of the endocrine system in the selection of phenotypes here.  Tell us... please.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
evidence please...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I will even skip the thousands of renowned creationists quotes from the likes of Faraday, Newton, Pasteur from enlightenment and after and cite your favorite secularist


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm not sure the forum software will let me express my disdain properly, but I will try.

QUOTES ARE NOT EVIDENCE

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

snip
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Interesting.  

Honestly, I think you are mostly correct here.  But, of course, that completely destroys your entire 'designed' argument.

Evolution (speaking anthropomorphically, which is incorrect, but I'll assume you understand) cannot use engineering principles, because it can't start over with a clean slate, like an intelligent designer can.

Evolution can't "keep it simple" because it has to use systems that are already in place and modify them only.

Evolution, of course, can't use the scientific method... that's a human construct.  But it does explore, it does test (without thinking about the results).  Like genetic algorithms, evolution changes things randomly and then tests the results in the real world against some fitness requirement.  If the organism doesn't meet this minimum requirement, then it dies, probably without leaving offspring.  If it does, then it's fitness can be compared to other offspring by judging how many offspring it creates and (occasionally) raises to reproductive age.

Although, I will say that NOTHING doesn't obey the Laws of Nature.  Anything, by definition, that does not obey the laws of nature is... supernatural... which, BTW, is what science expressly does not investigate.

So, thanks for eviscerating your own argument.  Shame, you didn't realize it.

Let's see, I can point out a non-miraculous genetic 'mistake'* that just happens to increase the survival rate of the owner by 95% in certain environmental situations.

Of course, if the death rate the this mistake prevents is close to 100% (and it is), then take a guess at what the genotype of the offspring will be (assuming you know how to figure this stuff out).

Here's a hint: cross a heterozygote with a homozygote for the trait.  Eliminate any offspring that are homozygous dominant.  Cross the resulting offspring (you pick two).  repeat 3 or four times.  How many homozygous dominants do you have?  How many heterzygotes do you have?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That’s why its more appropriate to say evolutionism because your scenario is based on faith and/or pseudoscience.  For instance, sickle cell anemia and enzyme eating bacteria are at least somewhat of a negative trait that doesnt even come close to explaining any evolution into a new species. Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet, I can provide mathematical evidence, experimental evidence, observational evidence for everything I say...

and you can't.

Tell you what.  Define species for me and I'll provide the evidence of the change you describe.  How about that?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Assertion.  Evidence please.

I'll point out here that you are using another rhetorical device.  It's called 'goalpost shifting'.  You make a claim, when that claim is defeated you say something like, "No, that doesn't deal with this claim."

Here we were talking about the massive evidence supporting adaptation and how mutation does not automatically lead to death, but improved fitness.  Then you claim that this does not explain speciation.

Of course it doesn't explain speciation.  It wasn't intended to, but you have to shift the goalposts to make it look like your argument hasn't been totally devastated.

Tell you what. If you so choose, pick an argument and stick to it, then we can to.

BTW: I can provide dozens of peer-reviewed papers showing single generation speciation and at least on showing a single generation genus change.  But that paper is only from 30+ years ago, I don't know why I should expect anyone to know it.


So let me be very clear here.  You don't understand cosmology.  You don't understand genetics.  You use strawman attacks against positions no actual scientists hold.  You think quotes are evidence.

Yeah, about what I thought.

I'll make the same offer to you that I do to all creationists.  I will voluntarily teach you using actual science.  My only requirement is that you want to learn how the world actually works.

At the least, it will give you a better understanding of what you have to do to make valid arguments both for ID and against evolution.

I predict that you won't do it.  No creationist I have dealt with in over 20 years has accepted.  I know why... do you?
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 22 2011,12:52

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 22 2011,03:26)
The request of "evidence please" was made in a context that "forastero" ignores:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

ID--superior designer made order from disorder

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The quotes from Einstein are opinion, not evidence. In fact, the repeated theme of "deeply emotional conviction" is a big clue that even Einstein was aware that he wasn't offering evidence. Of course, people used to proof-texting get quite confused when running into a scientific discussion where quoting an authority's opinion doesn't further an argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley, I misread that question but partly because I already provided evidence with the  big bang  (from chaos) quotes and the image of earth (order) that I posted above.

Hmm speaking of explosions, there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 22 2011,13:01

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 22 2011,06:55)
So Einstein used "designer-ish" language/believed in Spinozan deism therefore Jesus?

Great well that's that settled. Pub anyone?

Oh wait...

...maybe there are a few missing steps in your reasoning. I'm wondering if you'd accept the argument "Bertrand Russell did not use "designer-ish" language/did not believe in Spinozan deism therefore no Jesus". I'm guessing not. Perhaps reflect on why.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Said nothing of the sort. I simply asserted that he believed in ID
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 22 2011,13:01

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:32)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's an analogy that actually works.  A Dachshund is a dog right?  Canis familaris right?  A Great Dane is a dog, right?  Same species right... and yet radically different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That’s not mutation but rather domestic manipulation of preexisting ancestral phenotypes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The dog's genome says you are wrong.

Would you be more specific about your hypothesis of "domestic manipulation"? How would it occur, physiologically?
EDIT. This is relevant: < http://www.sciencemag.org/content....bstract >
Full text: < http://www27.brinkster.com/taisets....ent.pdf >
Read this and tell us your conclusion, please.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 22 2011,13:04

Oh and Spinoza seems to have believed Divine design and inspiration as well
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 22 2011,13:06

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,13:04)
Oh and Spinoza seems to have believed Divine design and inspiration as well
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So...?
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 22 2011,13:11

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,08:38)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:14)
explosions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude,

Explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, the difference between hyper-inflation and a matter/anti-matter explosion.

If you can't do this, then you don't understand what scientists are talking about.

I'll add that when a scientist is talking (much like we're doing here), the scientist must reduce the technical language and use more common words that the listeners understand so as not to confuse the listeners and not to bore them.  Unfortunately, this often reduces the accuracy of the statements by the scientists... which is then quote-mine fodder for jerks like you who don't understand (or don't care) that they are taking things out of context.

For example, I have often used the word explosion in referring to the Big Bang... to 3rd graders.  After that, I use inflation, often demonstrating with a balloon.

If you really want to talk cosmology, then let's talk about it, but let's talk about it using the actual terms and technical language.  If you can't do that, then you have no business using it as any kind of argument because you don't understand it.

To continue, please explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what symmetry breaking is, in context of the early universe.  Explain why it's important and the role the both inflation and gravity may have played in it.

Again, if you can't do that, then I really suggest you quit using words that you don't understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm..you want evidence and I give evidence. Tou want citations and I give citations. Now you want in my own words but that first paragraph to Robbin on the big bang was my own words.

...but funny how you only provide opinion
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 22 2011,13:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Wesley, I misread that question but partly because I already provided evidence with the  big bang  (from chaos) quotes and the image of earth (order) that I posted above.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You've left out exactly the bit that comprises what you assert, but have failed to demonstrate.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 22 2011,13:49

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2011,13:01)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:32)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here's an analogy that actually works.  A Dachshund is a dog right?  Canis familaris right?  A Great Dane is a dog, right?  Same species right... and yet radically different.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That’s not mutation but rather domestic manipulation of preexisting ancestral phenotypes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The dog's genome says you are wrong.

Would you be more specific about your hypothesis of "domestic manipulation"? How would it occur, physiologically?
EDIT. This is relevant: < http://www.sciencemag.org/content....bstract >
Full text: < http://www27.brinkster.com/taisets....ent.pdf >
Read this and tell us your conclusion, please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very interesting article but the dogs that Ogre and I were discussing are not hairless. The fossil record reveals a very wide diversity of wild and domestic dogs and these dogs were purposely bred for desired traits for many millennium

These so called hairless breeds are actually often fully haired as seen above. The mutation is somewhat deleterious in that the hairless forms have missing and/or deformed teeth and are to be kept mostly indoors from the sun. The coated forms do not have these problems.

These hairless dogs were once bred for ritualistic purposes but mostly for consumption. Hairlessness in fact, facilitates for food preparation
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 22 2011,14:03

The fact remains that many phenotypes in dogs have been linked to specific mutations.
I believe a major determinant of body size was identified, and published in Nature or Science a few years ago.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 22 2011,14:53

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,13:11)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,08:38)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:14)
explosions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude,

Explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, the difference between hyper-inflation and a matter/anti-matter explosion.

If you can't do this, then you don't understand what scientists are talking about.

I'll add that when a scientist is talking (much like we're doing here), the scientist must reduce the technical language and use more common words that the listeners understand so as not to confuse the listeners and not to bore them.  Unfortunately, this often reduces the accuracy of the statements by the scientists... which is then quote-mine fodder for jerks like you who don't understand (or don't care) that they are taking things out of context.

For example, I have often used the word explosion in referring to the Big Bang... to 3rd graders.  After that, I use inflation, often demonstrating with a balloon.

If you really want to talk cosmology, then let's talk about it, but let's talk about it using the actual terms and technical language.  If you can't do that, then you have no business using it as any kind of argument because you don't understand it.

To continue, please explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what symmetry breaking is, in context of the early universe.  Explain why it's important and the role the both inflation and gravity may have played in it.

Again, if you can't do that, then I really suggest you quit using words that you don't understand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm..you want evidence and I give evidence. Tou want citations and I give citations. Now you want in my own words but that first paragraph to Robbin on the big bang was my own words.

...but funny how you only provide opinion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry, you failed to actually answer the questions.

Again, explain the following IN YOUR OWN words.

hyper-inflation
explosion
symmetry breaking (in terms of the 3 minute universe)

I'll also note that you completely FAIL to understand the concept of 'explosion' as metaphor.

The Cambrian 'explosion' lasted for some 50 million odd years.  That's a heck of an explosion.  Why don't YOU show that you understand this by posting the lengths of those 'explosions' you mentioned.  

Funny how EVERYTHING I say can be cited and nothing you claim (except for metaphor) is.  You haven't asked for citations.  Further, if you did, then I predict you would use the classic creationist tactic of demanding evidence for something that no biologist thinks happened anyway... for example, your erroneous thinking that fruit flies should mutate into dogs eventually.

Look, it's very simple.  You are trying to argue some seriously advanced concepts without even a freshman high school student's understanding of the basics.

Why don't we get the basics down first?
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 22 2011,15:32

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,19:01)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 22 2011,06:55)
So Einstein used "designer-ish" language/believed in Spinozan deism therefore Jesus?

Great well that's that settled. Pub anyone?

Oh wait...

...maybe there are a few missing steps in your reasoning. I'm wondering if you'd accept the argument "Bertrand Russell did not use "designer-ish" language/did not believe in Spinozan deism therefore no Jesus". I'm guessing not. Perhaps reflect on why.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Said nothing of the sort. I simply asserted that he believed in ID
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fuck me, you're too stupid to recognise your own schtick when repeated to you.

Well, this is going to be worth my time, I can see the point went wooshing above you.

Louis
Posted by: paragwinn on Oct. 22 2011,19:38

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,20:32)
Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< AnalogyFAIL. >
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 22 2011,19:41

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,14:53)
Dude,

Explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, the difference between hyper-inflation and a matter/anti-matter explosion.

If you can't do this, then you don't understand what scientists are talking about.

I'll add that when a scientist is talking (much like we're doing here), the scientist must reduce the technical language and use more common words that the listeners understand so as not to confuse the listeners and not to bore them.  Unfortunately, this often reduces the accuracy of the statements by the scientists... which is then quote-mine fodder for jerks like you who don't understand (or don't care) that they are taking things out of context.

For example, I have often used the word explosion in referring to the Big Bang... to 3rd graders.  After that, I use inflation, often demonstrating with a balloon.

If you really want to talk cosmology, then let's talk about it, but let's talk about it using the actual terms and technical language.  If you can't do that, then you have no business using it as any kind of argument because you don't understand it.

To continue, please explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what symmetry breaking is, in context of the early universe.  Explain why it's important and the role the both inflation and gravity may have played in it.

Again, if you can't do that, then I really suggest you quit using words that you don't understand.[/quote]
Hmm..you want evidence and I give evidence. Tou want citations and I give citations. Now you want in my own words but that first paragraph to Robbin on the big bang was my own words.

...but funny how you only provide opinion[/quote]
I'm sorry, you failed to actually answer the questions.

Again, explain the following IN YOUR OWN words.

hyper-inflation
explosion
symmetry breaking (in terms of the 3 minute universe)

I'll also note that you completely FAIL to understand the concept of 'explosion' as metaphor.

The Cambrian 'explosion' lasted for some 50 million odd years.  That's a heck of an explosion.  Why don't YOU show that you understand this by posting the lengths of those 'explosions' you mentioned.  

Funny how EVERYTHING I say can be cited and nothing you claim (except for metaphor) is.  You haven't asked for citations.  Further, if you did, then I predict you would use the classic creationist tactic of demanding evidence for something that no biologist thinks happened anyway... for example, your erroneous thinking that fruit flies should mutate into dogs eventually.

Look, it's very simple.  You are trying to argue some seriously advanced concepts without even a freshman high school student's understanding of the basics.

Why don't we get the basics down first?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


50 million years? Thats not at empirical and you sound like the fellow who believes gravity created all all that order in that image I provided in the last page

Anyway, most top cosmologists disagree with you in that they describe two process--a titanic explosion or thermonuclear explosion or primordial fireball leading to expansion and they are not calling it a metaphor

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....MHH378Q >

The first minutes of the titanic explosion (Inflation theory): But how are the elements in the universe formed? The scientist “Alan Guth” answered this questions as he discovered another theory which is the ‘inflation theory’, and it was accepted by every scientist, and in this theory he explained the first 3 minutes after the titanic explosion, according to this theory the titanic explosion followed by a huge fireball in an extreme temperature after one part from many millions parts of a second, the temperature decreased to 1022 K, where the fundamental bodies is formed and after 10- 6 seconds the ‘singularity’ became as big as a solar system (it’s radius is 588 x 1010 ),when the temperature became 109 K the radiation became to be emitted after the first second the reaction stopped but universe is still expending until now. The “inflation” theory is considered very important because we knew the 1st minutes after the “Titanic explosion”, and it’s very mysterious explosion because it’s not such a normal explosion to the matter in space but it was the explosion of space itself. < http://library.thinkquest.org/C005731....th.html >


Alan Guth: We do have a number of pieces of information that we can put together to try use as a basis for constructing theories. Observations about the distributions of galaxies within the visible part of the universe, and the motions of galaxies. Also now very important are observations of the cosmic background radiation — radiation that we believe is the afterglow of the big bang’s explosion itself. < http://www.thefullwiki.org/Alan_Gu....an_Guth >

The birth of a new universe also does not affect the old one. It would take about 10?37 seconds to disconnect from its parent. However, all an observer would see is the formation of a black hole, which would disappear very quickly. Creating a new universe actually would be quite dangerous since it would result in the release of energy similar to that of a 500 kiloton explosion. < http://www.thefullwiki.org/Alan_Gu....an_Guth >

An answer came in 1979 when physicist Alan Guth proposed that, just after the primal explosion, the universe temporarily kicked into overdrive and began wildly expanding, doubling and doubling and doubling again. This inflationary epoch lasted the tiniest fraction of a second. But according to the calculations, this was enough to even out the radiation and flatten the curvature — to smooth out the wrinkles in the Big Bang. The Cosmological constant was back. < http://www.hbci.com/~wenona....ang.htm >

Today, the researchers who make up the Grand Challenge Cosmology Consortium (GC3) harness the power of supercomputers to look at the birth and infancy of the universe, starting from the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which is believed to have started it all about 15 billion years ago. GC3 is a collaboration between cosmologists, astrophysicists, and computer scientists studying the formation of large-scale cosmological structure.
< http://www.nsf.gov/news....ers.jsp >

Readhead, with Caltech colleagues Steve Padin and Timothy Pearson and others from Canada, Chile and the United States, generated the finest measurements to date of the cosmic microwave background. Cosmic microwave background (CMB) is a record of the first photons that escaped from the rapidly cooling, coalescing universe about 300,000 years after the cosmic explosion known as the Big Bang that is commonly believed to have given birth to the universe. < http://www.nsf.gov/od....241.htm >

According to current estimates, it burst into being 13.7 billion years ago in a titanic explosion called the Big Bang, with the galaxies congealing out of the cooling debris.
< http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science....ed.html >

About 13.7 billion years ago, the Universe burst into being in a titanic explosion called the Big Bang. Out of the expanding and cooling debris eventually congealed the galaxies, great islands of stars of which our own Milky Way is one. < http://royalsociety.org/news....ig-bang >

Eminent Scientist George Gamow and other scientists believe that Big Bang was a nuclear explosion. Gamow with his collaborators Ralph Alpher, Robert Hermann and James W. Follin, explored how chemical elements like helium and lithium could have been produced out of primordial hydrogen by thermonuclear reactions during the Big Bang. George Gamow put forward a hot Big Bang model in which primordial substance, or ylem, from which all other matter was created was an extraordinarily hot, dense singularity that exploded in a "Big Bang" and has been expanding ever since.
< http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/index.p....undance >

The term primordial fireball refers to this early time in the Universe. As the Universe continued to expand, its temperature and density dropped, allowing for the formation of atoms. This is known as the 'epoch of recombination', and it was at this time that photons could travel freely throughout the Universe for the first time. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) is the record of these photons at the moment of their escape.
< http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos....ireball >

About 3 seconds after the Big Bang, nucleosynthesis set in with protons and neutrons beginning to form the nuclei of simple elements, predominantly hydrogen and helium, yet for the first 100,000 years after the initial hot explosion there was no matter of the form we know today. < http://www.thebigview.com/spaceti....se.html >
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 22 2011,20:14

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 22 2011,19:38)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,20:32)
Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< AnalogyFAIL. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clearly I was referring to a testicle or scrotal hernia. In fact, a common treatment for testicle and umbilical hernia is castration. Eunuch of antiquity had all the private removed.

Graphic hernia medical procedure < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....QxvkZ2Y >
Posted by: Woodbine on Oct. 22 2011,20:20

Is this Batsh^t77?

That cut 'n' paste link-fest above seems awfully familiar.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 22 2011,20:52

I get the impression this is a load of bollocks.

Louis
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 22 2011,20:59

Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 22 2011,21:20)
Is this Batsh^t77?

That cut 'n' paste link-fest above seems awfully familiar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Needz moar utoobz.
Posted by: paragwinn on Oct. 22 2011,21:38

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,18:14)
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 22 2011,19:38)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,20:32)
Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< AnalogyFAIL. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clearly I was referring to a testicle or scrotal hernia. In fact, a common treatment for testicle and umbilical hernia is castration. Eunuch of antiquity had all the private removed.

Graphic hernia medical procedure < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....QxvkZ2Y >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you were not clear. Castration doesn't make someone immune to hernias. Since hernias in general involve a weakness in the abdominal wall, eunuchs would still be susceptible. With about < 750,000 hernia repairs > in people occurring every year, castration is NOT a common treatment for them.
And you might want to read here (< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....h >) about the kinds of eunuchs and the roles they played in various societies.

Why do I bother addressing this failed analogy? Because ID supporters such as yourself always get it wrong on the details, consistently re-affirming the statement made by Dr. Dr. Dembski himself, that ID does not concern itself with a "pathetic level of detail." You rely on ambiguity and the "popular" understanding of terms to make your arguments sound more informed than they really are. The mis-application of analogy only serves to highlight the weakness of your argument.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 22 2011,21:42

blah blah blah...

so you admit that you can't explain it in your own words?

Oh, and you are wrong... most scientists do NOT describe the beginning of the universe as a huge explosion.  Protons didn't even exist for the first second of the universe (I may have been wrong earlier... I didn't bother to look it up... now I have).

Atoms didn't exist for the first 3 minutes of the universe.  Therefore it couldn't have been CAUSED by a thermonuclear explosion... nuclei didn't exist.

Nucelosynthesis (i.e. the formation of nuclei) only occurred between 3-20 minutes AFTER the Big Bang began.  Nucleosynthesis results in lots of hydrogen and a little helium being formed through thermonuclear fusion.  Fusion STOPS after 20 minutes into the process because the universe has cooled and the density has lowered to the point where fusion can no longer occur.

Now, here is a list of cosmology texts and reference texts.  Find one, just a single one that states (as you do) the CAUSE of the Big Bang is a real chemical or nuclear explosion. < http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright....ib.html >

Again, if you don't know these simple facts and how they came to be regarded as facts, then you are poorly educated and really need to learn some basic cosmology before even beginning to argue it.

Again, I'm willing to teach you, but you have not indicated that you are willing to learn.

Just to be perfectly clear you are arguing against and ANALOGY that is usually used in elementary schools.  One that is known to be incorrect, but because of its absolute simplicity is good for those students who have not reached the sophistication of 7th or 8th grade.

Now, let's talk about the Cambrian 'explosion'.  I'm not sure what you're complain actually is, but being as you scoffed at my 50 million years (are you a young Earth creationist?  really?) let's discuss... no, let me explain the facts of basic geology to you, then you can go cry.

Here's an article that gives some of the radiometric dates for the Cambrian time frame.
Jago, J.B.; Haines, P.W. (1998). "Recent radiometric dating of some Cambrian rocks in southern Australia: relevance to the Cambrian time scale". Revista Española de Paleontología: 115–22.

Now, the Cambrian is the Geologic period that begins the Paleozoic and ends with the Ordivician.  Before you get all huffy, you need to understand that the geologic period was named well before the discovery of the massive radiation of life was known during it.

The precise date of the Cambrian will probably be officially declared to be 542 million years ago (plus or minus about 300,000) based on three major lines of evidence.  The first is called the carbon anomaly.  It is a sudden drop in the presence of carbon-13 in the rock layers.  Interestingly, this coincides with the second reason which is that of a notable horizon of volcanic ash that is calculated to the same age.  Which further explains the third line of reasoning which is the mass extinction of pre-cambrian fossils.
(Gradstein, F.M.; Ogg, J.G., Smith, A.G., others (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press.)

The Ordovician is marked at 488.3 mya+- 1.7 million years based on another major extinction event.  Coincidentally, it also matches well with the spread of trilobites, conodonts, and graptolites, which, do to their uniqueness and variations over time are fantastic index fossils.

Since 50 million years isn't precise enough for you, then I'll go with 53.7 million years plus or minus 2 million years.  I realize that the level of error is longer than humans have existed, but we're looking backwards half a billion years.

Is that sufficiently precise?

I will note that you have STILL failed to provide any evidence or support ANY of your assertions and still believe that evidence is based on quotes.  

I have provide some of the materials I used, feel free to look them up and if you find a mistake, do let the nobel prize committee know.  I would suggest you discuss it here before claiming such a mistake though, it would be really embarrassing to declare someone in error because you don't understand the difference between laptons, haydrons, and baryons.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 22 2011,21:54

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2011,14:03)
The fact remains that many phenotypes in dogs have been linked to specific mutations.
I believe a major determinant of body size was identified, and published in Nature or Science a few years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That article is actually quite interesting.  It points to something that creationists absolutely loathe to hear... that is, simple changes can result in huge morphological variation.

And they, like forastero here, cannot understand that it doesn't matter what we THINK the mutation is (helpful or harmful), what really matters is what actually happens in the environment.

Since dogs have been completely linked with humans for the last few thousand years, it is easy to show how that hairless mutation resulted in a positive advantage for the dog.  They became sacred animals.  In other words, they got all their food and shelter provided to them and no human would harm or allow harm to come them... thus spreading the mutation.

It doesn't matter if the mutation made it impossible for the dogs to go outside or they had bad teeth.  The mutation made the dogs into objects of worship by humans, which massively increased their chances of survival and reproduction.

Same thing happens in nature.  forastero complains about the sickle cell anemia gene.  Of course it's detrimental, but the heterozygous condition is a LOT LESS detrimental than either of the homozygous conditions in an environment with malaria.

This isn't rocket science.  BTW: You still haven't defined, in your own words, what heterozygous and homozygous mean, so I can't be sure that you even understand me.

Nor, have you, forastero explained ANYTHING about the supposed link between the endocrine system and the selection of phenotypes.  I am really, really interested in this... any evidence or even any supporting document for your claim?  Do you even know what a phenotype is?  It really doesn't sound like it.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,02:12

Other relevant reads for our guest:
< adaptive allele in deer mice >
< alleles controlling mimmicry in butterflies >
< gene controlling armor plates and ecological adaptation in sticklebacks >
< opsin genes drive speciation in cichlid fishes >
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,02:21

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,21:54)
Nor, have you, forastero explained ANYTHING about the supposed link between the endocrine system and the selection of phenotypes.  I am really, really interested in this... any evidence or even any supporting document for your claim?  Do you even know what a phenotype is?  It really doesn't sound like it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm quitei interested in hearing this theory too. If the endocrine system selects phenotypes, it means that it is confronted to different phenotypes. Is the same endocrine system shared by several individuals, somehow?
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,02:55

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,02:12)
Other relevant reads for our guest:
< adaptive allele in deer mice >
< alleles controlling mimmicry in butterflies >
< gene controlling armor plates and ecological adaptation in sticklebacks >
< opsin genes drive speciation in cichlid fishes >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "

The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with

Moreover, the mice remain interbreeding mice, the butterflies remain interbreeding butterflies,the chiclids remain interbreeding cichlids, and the sticklebacks remain interbreeding sticklebacks  

What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies

Thanks
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,03:40

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,21:42)
blah blah blah...

so you admit that you can't explain it in your own words?

Oh, and you are wrong... most scientists do NOT describe the beginning of the universe as a huge explosion.  Protons didn't even exist for the first second of the universe (I may have been wrong earlier... I didn't bother to look it up... now I have).

Atoms didn't exist for the first 3 minutes of the universe.  Therefore it couldn't have been CAUSED by a thermonuclear explosion... nuclei didn't exist.

Nucelosynthesis (i.e. the formation of nuclei) only occurred between 3-20 minutes AFTER the Big Bang began.  Nucleosynthesis results in lots of hydrogen and a little helium being formed through thermonuclear fusion.  Fusion STOPS after 20 minutes into the process because the universe has cooled and the density has lowered to the point where fusion can no longer occur.

Now, here is a list of cosmology texts and reference texts.  Find one, just a single one that states (as you do) the CAUSE of the Big Bang is a real chemical or nuclear explosion. < http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright....ib.html >

Again, if you don't know these simple facts and how they came to be regarded as facts, then you are poorly educated and really need to learn some basic cosmology before even beginning to argue it.

Again, I'm willing to teach you, but you have not indicated that you are willing to learn.

Just to be perfectly clear you are arguing against and ANALOGY that is usually used in elementary schools.  One that is known to be incorrect, but because of its absolute simplicity is good for those students who have not reached the sophistication of 7th or 8th grade.

Now, let's talk about the Cambrian 'explosion'.  I'm not sure what you're complain actually is, but being as you scoffed at my 50 million years (are you a young Earth creationist?  really?) let's discuss... no, let me explain the facts of basic geology to you, then you can go cry.

Here's an article that gives some of the radiometric dates for the Cambrian time frame.
Jago, J.B.; Haines, P.W. (1998). "Recent radiometric dating of some Cambrian rocks in southern Australia: relevance to the Cambrian time scale". Revista Española de Paleontología: 115–22.

Now, the Cambrian is the Geologic period that begins the Paleozoic and ends with the Ordivician.  Before you get all huffy, you need to understand that the geologic period was named well before the discovery of the massive radiation of life was known during it.

The precise date of the Cambrian will probably be officially declared to be 542 million years ago (plus or minus about 300,000) based on three major lines of evidence.  The first is called the carbon anomaly.  It is a sudden drop in the presence of carbon-13 in the rock layers.  Interestingly, this coincides with the second reason which is that of a notable horizon of volcanic ash that is calculated to the same age.  Which further explains the third line of reasoning which is the mass extinction of pre-cambrian fossils.
(Gradstein, F.M.; Ogg, J.G., Smith, A.G., others (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press.)

The Ordovician is marked at 488.3 mya+- 1.7 million years based on another major extinction event.  Coincidentally, it also matches well with the spread of trilobites, conodonts, and graptolites, which, do to their uniqueness and variations over time are fantastic index fossils.

Since 50 million years isn't precise enough for you, then I'll go with 53.7 million years plus or minus 2 million years.  I realize that the level of error is longer than humans have existed, but we're looking backwards half a billion years.

Is that sufficiently precise?

I will note that you have STILL failed to provide any evidence or support ANY of your assertions and still believe that evidence is based on quotes.  

I have provide some of the materials I used, feel free to look them up and if you find a mistake, do let the nobel prize committee know.  I would suggest you discuss it here before claiming such a mistake though, it would be really embarrassing to declare someone in error because you don't understand the difference between laptons, haydrons, and baryons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

And your first and only link is a bit broad wouldn’t you say? Thus, I just went to the first book and whata ya know. < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >

It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

..and no good evidence for intermediates so your priests came up with super sun god powered punctuated equilibrium
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,03:51

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 22 2011,21:38)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,18:14)
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 22 2011,19:38)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,20:32)
Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< AnalogyFAIL. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clearly I was referring to a testicle or scrotal hernia. In fact, a common treatment for testicle and umbilical hernia is castration. Eunuch of antiquity had all the private removed.

Graphic hernia medical procedure < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....QxvkZ2Y >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you were not clear. Castration doesn't make someone immune to hernias. Since hernias in general involve a weakness in the abdominal wall, eunuchs would still be susceptible. With about < 750,000 hernia repairs > in people occurring every year, castration is NOT a common treatment for them.
And you might want to read here (< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ki....h >) about the kinds of eunuchs and the roles they played in various societies.

Why do I bother addressing this failed analogy? Because ID supporters such as yourself always get it wrong on the details, consistently re-affirming the statement made by Dr. Dr. Dembski himself, that ID does not concern itself with a "pathetic level of detail." You rely on ambiguity and the "popular" understanding of terms to make your arguments sound more informed than they really are. The mis-application of analogy only serves to highlight the weakness of your argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep, fist sentence of your wiki eunuch says Eunuchs of old were typically castrated

which of coarse made them immune to testicular hernias
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,04:04

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,21:54)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2011,14:03)
The fact remains that many phenotypes in dogs have been linked to specific mutations.
I believe a major determinant of body size was identified, and published in Nature or Science a few years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That article is actually quite interesting.  It points to something that creationists absolutely loathe to hear... that is, simple changes can result in huge morphological variation.

And they, like forastero here, cannot understand that it doesn't matter what we THINK the mutation is (helpful or harmful), what really matters is what actually happens in the environment.

Since dogs have been completely linked with humans for the last few thousand years, it is easy to show how that hairless mutation resulted in a positive advantage for the dog.  They became sacred animals.  In other words, they got all their food and shelter provided to them and no human would harm or allow harm to come them... thus spreading the mutation.

It doesn't matter if the mutation made it impossible for the dogs to go outside or they had bad teeth.  The mutation made the dogs into objects of worship by humans, which massively increased their chances of survival and reproduction.

Same thing happens in nature.  forastero complains about the sickle cell anemia gene.  Of course it's detrimental, but the heterozygous condition is a LOT LESS detrimental than either of the homozygous conditions in an environment with malaria.

This isn't rocket science.  BTW: You still haven't defined, in your own words, what heterozygous and homozygous mean, so I can't be sure that you even understand me.

Nor, have you, forastero explained ANYTHING about the supposed link between the endocrine system and the selection of phenotypes.  I am really, really interested in this... any evidence or even any supporting document for your claim?  Do you even know what a phenotype is?  It really doesn't sound like it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ogre, The consumption of hairless dogs nearly drove them to extinction and they are still fairly rare even after lots of efforts to revive them

btw, I am still working on some of your other answers above
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,04:18

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,02:55)
Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "

The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with

Moreover, the mice remain interbreeding mice, the butterflies remain interbreeding butterflies,the chiclids remain interbreeding cichlids, and the sticklebacks remain interbreeding sticklebacks  

What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies

Thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Were you not arguing that mutations where merely "mistakes" which could not cause adaptation? The 4 papers I linked to show the contrary, even though some details may remain unknown.

On the other hand, would you quote an evolutionary biologist saying that a mutation should turn a bacterium into a non-bacterium (an eukaryote?), or a fruit fly into non-fruit fly? I'll wait.

You are intellectually dishonest.
Posted by: paragwinn on Oct. 23 2011,04:31

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,01:51)
Yep, fist sentence of your wiki eunuch says Eunuchs of old were typically castrated

which of coarse made them immune to testicular hernias
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evidently,  you didnt read much further. Eunuchs also included those who were impotent or celibate while still having testicles. And now with chemical castration, 'eunuchs' can still experience testicular hernias.

Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,04:35

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40)
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not a paleontologist, but google doesn't find much about many of the "explosions" you list.
There are results about a "pleistocene explosion", which refer to a population expansion in humans.
So I am not sure how you interpret the term "explosion".
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,04:51

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:18)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,02:55)
Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "

The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with

Moreover, the mice remain interbreeding mice, the butterflies remain interbreeding butterflies,the chiclids remain interbreeding cichlids, and the sticklebacks remain interbreeding sticklebacks  

What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies

Thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Were you not arguing that mutations where merely "mistakes" which could not cause adaptation? The 4 papers I linked to show the contrary, even though some details may remain unknown.

On the other hand, would you quote an evolutionary biologist saying that a mutation should turn a bacterium into a non-bacterium (an eukaryote?), or a fruit fly into non-fruit fly? I'll wait.

You are intellectually dishonest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm well your abstracts actually dont tell us anything about  mutations do they; but how do you explain evolutionism's primordial soup to sea scorpions? Aliens maybe, Shiva and Vishnu?
Posted by: paragwinn on Oct. 23 2011,04:52

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,02:35)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40)
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not a paleontologist, but google doesn't find much about many of the "explosions" you list.
There are results about a "pleistocene explosion", which refer to a population expansion in humans.
So I am not sure how you interpret the term "explosion".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


forastero must be a big fan of director/producer Michael Bay (Transformers, Armegeddon, Bad Boys, Meat Loaf: Bat Out of Hell 2)
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,04:53

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,01:51)
Yep, fist sentence of your wiki eunuch says Eunuchs of old were typically castrated

which of coarse made them immune to testicular hernias
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evidently,  you didnt read much further. Eunuchs also included those who were impotent or celibate while still having testicles. And now with chemical castration, 'eunuchs' can still experience testicular hernias.

Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are welcome to add your own examples

Again, lots of Eunuchs are immune to scrotal hernias
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,04:55

Mutations cannot be easily described in an abstract, no. An abstract is not suited for nucleotide sequence alignments.

And there is a difference between a single mutation and billions of mutations (and between evolution and abiogenesis as well).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
how do you explain evolutionism's primordial soup to sea scorpions? Aliens maybe, Shiva and Vishnu?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like ID to me.  :)
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,04:56

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:35)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40)
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not a paleontologist, but google doesn't find much about many of the "explosions" you list.
There are results about a "pleistocene explosion", which refer to a population expansion in humans.
So I am not sure how you interpret the term "explosion".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yeah they're all described but your high priest dont really like to think about them all that much
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,04:57

Link to each one, please.
And evidence that they are ignored by evolutionary biologists.
I bet that whenever such "explosion" was described, it wasn't described first by a creationist.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,05:03

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:55)
Mutations cannot be easily described in an abstract, no. An abstract is not suited for nucleotide sequence alignments.

And there is a difference between a single mutation and billions of mutations (and between evolution and abiogenesis as well).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
how do you explain evolutionism's primordial soup to sea scorpions? Aliens maybe, Shiva and Vishnu?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds like ID to me.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am  really interested in your brand of evolution, for it seems different than the other members
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,05:04

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:57)
Link to each one, please.
And evidence that they are ignored by evolutionary biologists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Try google with these things " "
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,05:07

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:57)
Link to each one, please.
And evidence that they are ignored by evolutionary biologists.
I bet that whenever such "explosion" was described, it wasn't described first by a creationist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The evidence is that you havnt heard of them cant seem to find them
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,05:07

So you have nothing? I thought so.

I think the ball is in your camp. What's your theory of evolution/creation? You were quite specific about the endocrine system. Tell us more about it.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,05:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am  really interested in your brand of evolution, for it seems different than the other members

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go read a textbook on evolutionary theory. The one by Mark Ridley is quite good.
You need to be familiar with general biology and genetics though.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,05:12

Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,05:15

I don't think you are granted editing rights as a new member, but you can still ask the forum admin/moderator.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,05:15

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,05:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am  really interested in your brand of evolution, for it seems different than the other members

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go read a textbook on evolutionary theory. The one by Mark Ridley is quite good.
You need to be familiar with general biology and genetics though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


but on the bottom of page 2, you alluded to the fact that mutations dont make bacteria evolve into anything beyond bacteria
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,05:20

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,05:15)
I don't think you are granted editing rights as a new member, but you can still ask the forum admin/moderator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh darn

but thanks
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,05:22

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,05:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am  really interested in your brand of evolution, for it seems different than the other members

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go read a textbook on evolutionary theory. The one by Mark Ridley is quite good.
You need to be familiar with general biology and genetics though.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh and I will check that book out
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,05:29

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:52)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,02:35)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40)
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not a paleontologist, but google doesn't find much about many of the "explosions" you list.
There are results about a "pleistocene explosion", which refer to a population expansion in humans.
So I am not sure how you interpret the term "explosion".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


forastero must be a big fan of director/producer Michael Bay (Transformers, Armegeddon, Bad Boys, Meat Loaf: Bat Out of Hell 2)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually not really
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,06:28

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:15)
on the bottom of page 2, you alluded to the fact that mutations dont make bacteria evolve into anything beyond bacteria
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I said    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
would you quote an evolutionary biologist saying that a mutation should turn a bacterium into a non-bacterium (an eukaryote?), or a fruit fly into non-fruit fly?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


in response to:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So it wasn't clear whether you expected a single mutation to turn an organism into a completely different one.
Regarding the mutationS that turned non-fruit flies into fruit flies, they are the many mutationS that differentiate the genome of the common ancestor of fruit flies (Drosophila) from the genome of the common ancestor of [Drosophila and another non-fruit fly genus], assuming such ancestor would not be called "fruit fly". Needless to say, these mutation have accumulated in millions of years in the natural environment and are not expected to be reproduced in the lab during a scientist's lifetime. But researchers have found mutations governing specific phenotypes, wing patterns in particular.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,07:36

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,02:55)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,02:12)
Other relevant reads for our guest:
< adaptive allele in deer mice >
< alleles controlling mimmicry in butterflies >
< gene controlling armor plates and ecological adaptation in sticklebacks >
< opsin genes drive speciation in cichlid fishes >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "

The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with

Moreover, the mice remain interbreeding mice, the butterflies remain interbreeding butterflies,the chiclids remain interbreeding cichlids, and the sticklebacks remain interbreeding sticklebacks  

What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies

Thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mutations, of course, which don't exist, nor are they expected to exist.

It's really quite offensive to have to say something several times.

No one expects fruit flies to turn into dogs, except creationists.

You may now stop using this strawman fallacy.

However, as I said, you have but to ask and anyone of us can provide dozens of papers, probably hundreds, of speciation events and I know of at least one genus change in a single generation.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,07:52

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40)
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.

And your first and only link is a bit broad wouldn’t you say? Thus, I just went to the first book and whata ya know. < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >

It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

..and no good evidence for intermediates so your priests came up with super sun god powered punctuated equilibrium
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are making claims, then you need to support them.  Please provide evidence for you assertion that any of the fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time.  The mere fact that you are using a computer shows that this is wrong.

Further, astronomers can see backwards in time and observe that the fundamental forces of our universe are the same 13 billion years ago as the are now.  

You can just ignore the evidence, but it just makes you look like a dummy.   Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Now, as to the book... here's what it says in regards to an explosion:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The term 'Big Bang' implies some sort of explosion, which is a not wholly inappropriate analogy, except that the Big Bang was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, what exploded?  It couldn't have been a thermonuclear explosion as you think since matter didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang.  It couldn't have been matter/anti-matter, etc.

Do you see that word 'analogy'?  A not wholly appropriate analogy.

You are making an argument about AN ANALOGY.  This is just another strawman argument and has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

Tell you what, I know that you won't, but why don't you tell me what the Cambrian explosion is.  In your own words, describe what exploded and when and how. Go ahead, describe in detail.

Then you bring up an entirely new argument (typical of creationists) without satisfactorily completing any of the prior arguments.  Intermediates?

There are thousands of peer-reviewed articles showing intermediates.  Heck, you are an intermediate between your parents and your children.  Duh.

Now, let's see what do we need from you:

define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time

And now you want to talk about intermediates?

Gish Gallop on!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,07:54

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,01:51)
Yep, fist sentence of your wiki eunuch says Eunuchs of old were typically castrated

which of coarse made them immune to testicular hernias
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evidently,  you didnt read much further. Eunuchs also included those who were impotent or celibate while still having testicles. And now with chemical castration, 'eunuchs' can still experience testicular hernias.

Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So removing the testicles means you are immune to testicular hernias... that makes sense (forastero still doesn't though).

What about any of the other types of hernias?  Would removal of the testicles prevent those as well?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,07:57

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,04:51)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:18)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,02:55)
Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "

The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with

Moreover, the mice remain interbreeding mice, the butterflies remain interbreeding butterflies,the chiclids remain interbreeding cichlids, and the sticklebacks remain interbreeding sticklebacks  

What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies

Thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Were you not arguing that mutations where merely "mistakes" which could not cause adaptation? The 4 papers I linked to show the contrary, even though some details may remain unknown.

On the other hand, would you quote an evolutionary biologist saying that a mutation should turn a bacterium into a non-bacterium (an eukaryote?), or a fruit fly into non-fruit fly? I'll wait.

You are intellectually dishonest.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm well your abstracts actually dont tell us anything about  mutations do they; but how do you explain evolutionism's primordial soup to sea scorpions? Aliens maybe, Shiva and Vishnu?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet, another new topic of discussion.

You really do not want to argue origins of life chemistry with me, child.

Why don't we stick to the list of things we have and finish those up, hmmm?

Tell you what though, I'll add OOL to our list for discussion later.

BUT

We have forgotten a major component of our discussion.  Let's play a little game, shall we.

OK, evolution is no more.  What replaces it?  What evidence do you have for what replaces it?  What tools, processes, and knowledge come from what replaces it?

I know the answer, do you?
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 23 2011,08:34

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:37)
Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is great that you accept mutations as a fact. It doesn't matter whether you like mutations; they are essential for life as we know it.

Do you have any idea about what life on this planet might have been without mutations? We wouldn't be here, that's for sure!
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 23 2011,08:45

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,09:21

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably more regretting the "endocrine system determines phenotype" think.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 23 2011,10:22

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,12:52)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 22 2011,03:26)
The request of "evidence please" was made in a context that "forastero" ignores:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

ID--superior designer made order from disorder

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The quotes from Einstein are opinion, not evidence. In fact, the repeated theme of "deeply emotional conviction" is a big clue that even Einstein was aware that he wasn't offering evidence. Of course, people used to proof-texting get quite confused when running into a scientific discussion where quoting an authority's opinion doesn't further an argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley, I misread that question but partly because I already provided evidence with the  big bang  (from chaos) quotes and the image of earth (order) that I posted above.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually you engaged in EPIC FAIL.  The entropy (disorder) of the universe has been increasing since the big bang (chaos) to a universe now containing the earth (order). Your argument is self-contradictory, though you are so ignorant you don't know the trivial misunderstanding that when addressed gives the solution.

You do not understand thermodynamics (or anything else) above 10 year old level, and evidently your superior designer is no more superior than the force of gravity, which explains the formation of the earth (order) from a dust cloud (chaos).
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 23 2011,10:39

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,06:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


at the rate you are going you might as well forget about it
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 23 2011,10:41

I AM TWO STOPID TOO UNDERSTAND TIHNGS YOU EXPLAIN TWO ME ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAIRLESS DOGS AND GOO TO YOU SO JESUS WIN FUCK OFF ATHIEST
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,11:28

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,09:21)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably more regretting the "endocrine system determines phenotype" think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do so many of you so called scientists deny this ?

..and you still havnt answered how mutations and natural selection cause all the explosions of life that I mentioned above nor how a bacteria evolves from something besides a bacteria
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,11:42

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Likewise, why do so many so called scientists deny this?
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,11:57

This study might also be of interest: < cristal structure of an ancient protein >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 23 2011,11:58

deny what, you credulous git?  that the cambrian explosion wasn't really an explosion?

i realize you are probably trying to sound stupid here as part of your shtick but i think you are overselling it a tad.  try backing off, mentioning hitler, more perhaps something about moral relativism, less about actual facts.  the dance will last longer.  just a thought luv
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,12:03

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,11:42)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Likewise, why do so many so called scientists deny this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"I can't find evidence of it, which proves that scientists deny it, therefore I can't find any evidence of it, which proves that..."

(note, that may not apply to the whole the list, the cambrian "explosion" is well documented)

BTW, here's what google finds for your "pleistocene explosion": < http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf >
Hardly denied by the Darwinists.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,12:10

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,07:52)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40)
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.

And your first and only link is a bit broad wouldn’t you say? Thus, I just went to the first book and whata ya know. < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >

It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

..and no good evidence for intermediates so your priests came up with super sun god powered punctuated equilibrium
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are making claims, then you need to support them.  Please provide evidence for you assertion that any of the fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time.  The mere fact that you are using a computer shows that this is wrong.

Further, astronomers can see backwards in time and observe that the fundamental forces of our universe are the same 13 billion years ago as the are now.  

You can just ignore the evidence, but it just makes you look like a dummy.   Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Now, as to the book... here's what it says in regards to an explosion:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The term 'Big Bang' implies some sort of explosion, which is a not wholly inappropriate analogy, except that the Big Bang was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So, what exploded?  It couldn't have been a thermonuclear explosion as you think since matter didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang.  It couldn't have been matter/anti-matter, etc.

Do you see that word 'analogy'?  A not wholly appropriate analogy.

You are making an argument about AN ANALOGY.  This is just another strawman argument and has absolutely nothing to do with reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......

-I used nuclear explosion as just one of the ways some scientists explain the big bang but why on earth do you deny that nucleosynthesis explosions? Do you also deny nucleosynthesis from supernova explosions?

-I'm actually mostly just answering all the questions since you refuse to answer how mutations and natural selection creates life
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,12:28

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,11:58)
deny what, you credulous git?  that the cambrian explosion wasn't really an explosion?

i realize you are probably trying to sound stupid here as part of your shtick but i think you are overselling it a tad.  try backing off, mentioning hitler, more perhaps something about moral relativism, less about actual facts.  the dance will last longer.  just a thought luv
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then try to prove that it wasnt an explosion of benthic diversity
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,12:32

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:03)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,11:42)
 
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Likewise, why do so many so called scientists deny this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"I can't find evidence of it, which proves that scientists deny it, therefore I can't find any evidence of it, which proves that..."

(note, that may not apply to the whole the list, the cambrian "explosion" is well documented)

BTW, here's what google finds for your "pleistocene explosion": < http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf >
Hardly denied by the Darwinists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,12:38

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,11:28)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,09:21)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably more regretting the "endocrine system determines phenotype" think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do so many of you so called scientists deny this ?

..and you still havnt answered how mutations and natural selection cause all the explosions of life that I mentioned above nor how a bacteria evolves from something besides a bacteria
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We don't deny it.  We don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Explain, in detail (third request) how the endocrine system selects the phenotype.  In your explanation you need to define phenotype, define the endocrine system, explain the mechanism by which this occurs, and provide sufficient evidence that this is the case.

You have done none of this after multiple requests.  You are making a bald assertion with no evidence.

As to the 'explosions' of the Cambrian and whatever other eras, can you explain what exploded and the mechanism of those explosions.  Evidence for all claims and statements must be provided.  Otherwise, you're just blathering.

While, you are at it, I would appreciate links to peer-reviewed documentation that geologists and paleontologists recognize all of those 'explosions'.  Because I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

Prove me wrong.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,12:40

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:03)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,11:42)
 
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Likewise, why do so many so called scientists deny this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"I can't find evidence of it, which proves that scientists deny it, therefore I can't find any evidence of it, which proves that..."

(note, that may not apply to the whole the list, the cambrian "explosion" is well documented)

BTW, here's what google finds for your "pleistocene explosion": < http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf >
Hardly denied by the Darwinists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting.  This paper is a completely different type of explosion than that of the Cambrian (and the Big Bang for that matter).

foastero, would you care to explain?

By that, I mean, all you doing is lumping words together without any apparent understanding of what is exploding.  Because there is a fundamental difference between the Cambrian explosion and that of the Pleistocene explosion (actually several), do you know what they are?
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,12:42

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,12:43

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,11:57)
This study might also be of interest: < cristal structure of an ancient protein >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I will read that in a bit
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,12:49

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,12:54

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:10)
-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......

-I used nuclear explosion as just one of the ways some scientists explain the big bang but why on earth do you deny that nucleosynthesis explosions? Do you also deny nucleosynthesis from supernova explosions?

-I'm actually mostly just answering all the questions since you refuse to answer how mutations and natural selection creates life
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The sun is 'dying' (for some value of the word 'dying') by well understood processes that are consistent with constant values of the various fundamental forces of the universe.

BTW: "Uniformitarianism" is not used in the context of the universe, it is used in the context of Geology.

The Earth's rotational spin is slowing because of well understood processes that are consistent with the knowledge of the various fundamental forces of the universe. etc, etc, etc.

You keep using words.  I don't think they mean what you think they mean.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I used nuclear explosion as just one of the ways some scientists explain the big bang but why on earth do you deny that nucleosynthesis explosions? Do you also deny nucleosynthesis from supernova explosions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Earth, Moon, and Stars you are dumb.  Please explain, in detail, how nuclear explosions could have happened WHEN THERE WERE NO NUCLEI?!?!?!?!?

I know what nucleosynthesis is and I know when it occurs, in the context of the Big Bang.  The Big Band cannot have been an explosion as defined by any common understanding of the chemical, nuclear, or subnuclear domains because those systems DID NOT EXIST until AFTER the Big Bang?  What the heck is so hard about this?

Any type of argument from analogy is doomed to failure.  If you want to talk about early cosmology, then talk about it, but use the actual language of the scientists (math might help) and quit using stupid analogies that are suitable for elementary students and the scientifically illiterate.

As to you last 'question'... you truly are an idiot aren't you?  mutations, natural selection, and evolution DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH creating life.  Those processes only work once you have life.

Once again, you create a strawman argument, then demand a level of explanation from scientists about a notion that they don't subscribe to all the while refusing to require the same level of detail from your own notions.  It's called intellectual cowardice.

Once again, the list of things you have yet to explain or even discuss, using your own words, to the level where someone might believe you know what you are talking about.

define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.

Everytime you say something, you really ought to consider whether you back support your claims.  Here, you will get called on them, each and every one.  Note, the additions from your list of claims onto the list of things you need to provide evidence for.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,12:56

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,12:38)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,11:28)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,09:21)
 
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably more regretting the "endocrine system determines phenotype" think.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do so many of you so called scientists deny this ?

..and you still havnt answered how mutations and natural selection cause all the explosions of life that I mentioned above nor how a bacteria evolves from something besides a bacteria
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We don't deny it.  We don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Explain, in detail (third request) how the endocrine system selects the phenotype.  In your explanation you need to define phenotype, define the endocrine system, explain the mechanism by which this occurs, and provide sufficient evidence that this is the case.

You have done none of this after multiple requests.  You are making a bald assertion with no evidence.

As to the 'explosions' of the Cambrian and whatever other eras, can you explain what exploded and the mechanism of those explosions.  Evidence for all claims and statements must be provided.  Otherwise, you're just blathering.

While, you are at it, I would appreciate links to peer-reviewed documentation that geologists and paleontologists recognize all of those 'explosions'.  Because I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

Prove me wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually you originally did seem to deny it on several occasions but you said you were going to teach me about my original question--how mutations and natural selection create new life or new orders or new genus

but you never do
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,12:57

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:49)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems you're not grasping the different meanings of "explosion".
So what are these "pleistocene explosionS"? Could you describe them in your own words, or at least link to the google results you found?

No one missed the fact that you have failed to substantiate any claim so far.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,13:00

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:49)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


On the first page of Google results with "Pleistocene explosion"

There are four results that are from the paper Jeanot provided.  Each one referencing the paper.

There are three results on volcanic explosions of the pleistocene.

And one result describing the pleistocene explosion of human creativity.

The second page has results about the explosion of atheism, a drugstore, 5 more hits on the Rogers paper, and three more hits on volcanic explosions.

Sorry, no genetic diversity there.
< Google results >
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 23 2011,13:02

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:57)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:49)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
   
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Seems you're not grasping the different meanings of "explosion".


No one missed the fact that you have failed to substantiate any claim so far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


However, he does seem to be smart enough to be a Double Naught Spy!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,13:11

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)
Actually you originally did seem to deny it on several occasions but you said you were going to teach me about my original question--how mutations and natural selection create new life or new orders or new genus

but you never do
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I deny that the endocrine system can influence phenotype or select phenotype.  You have yet to provide any evidence that this is case.

I was not going to teach you about how mutations and natural selection create new life... because they weren't involved in life to begin with.

I would be happy to educate you on how mutations and natural selection can create new SPECIES and in at least one known case, a new genus.  However, the 'new orders' is another fundamental misunderstanding you have about evolution and biology.

Are you willing to learn?  If you are then, we will have to take some very baby steps, because it is obvious that you have quite a few misunderstandings.

But the question remains, are you willing to learn?  That means reading carefully, that means actually considering new information and being honest.  It also means honestly answering any questions that may come up for you.  To that end, I would like to know where you get your current information from, so that I might best prepare some material to show you the deficiencies in that material.  Are you willing to do this?

You see, I can talk until I'm blue in the face, but unless you are willing to learn, then there isn't any point.  I can only judge your behavior by what I have seen here on this thread, and honestly, so far it is not impressive.

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose or not realizing it, but you have been caught in numerous logical fallacies... indeed, almost a textbook argument of the kind creationists use.  Argument by analogy, argument by authority, goalpost-shifting, quote-mining, and that's not to mention the fundamental mistakes in biology, chemistry, and physics so far.  Which, BTW, we have attempted to correct, but you don't seem to be interested in learning.

Just continuing to insist that the Big Bang was an actual explosion of the nuclear or (possibly sub-nuclear) kind shows that you have not even read some of the basics from actual scientists.

Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,13:16

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,12:54)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:10)
-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......

-I used nuclear explosion as just one of the ways some scientists explain the big bang but why on earth do you deny that nucleosynthesis explosions? Do you also deny nucleosynthesis from supernova explosions?

-I'm actually mostly just answering all the questions since you refuse to answer how mutations and natural selection creates life
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The sun is 'dying' (for some value of the word 'dying') by well understood processes that are consistent with constant values of the various fundamental forces of the universe.

BTW: "Uniformitarianism" is not used in the context of the universe, it is used in the context of Geology.

The Earth's rotational spin is slowing because of well understood processes that are consistent with the knowledge of the various fundamental forces of the universe. etc, etc, etc.



Everytime you say something, you really ought to consider whether you back support your claims.  Here, you will get called on them, each and every one.  Note, the additions from your list of claims onto the list of things you need to provide evidence for.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To say that the earth follows uniformitarianism but cosmological forces do not is denying that cosmological processes effect the earth, Which is pseudoscience again.  
but then you also conform to a belief that the earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again

If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,13:28

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,13:11)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)
Actually you originally did seem to deny it on several occasions but you said you were going to teach me about my original question--how mutations and natural selection create new life or new orders or new genus

but you never do
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I deny that the endocrine system can influence phenotype or select phenotype.  You have yet to provide any evidence that this is case.

I was not going to teach you about how mutations and natural selection create new life... because they weren't involved in life to begin with.

I would be happy to educate you on how mutations and natural selection can create new SPECIES and in at least one known case, a new genus.  However, the 'new orders' is another fundamental misunderstanding you have about evolution and biology.

Are you willing to learn?  If you are then, we will have to take some very baby steps, because it is obvious that you have quite a few misunderstandings.

But the question remains, are you willing to learn?  That means reading carefully, that means actually considering new information and being honest.  It also means honestly answering any questions that may come up for you.  To that end, I would like to know where you get your current information from, so that I might best prepare some material to show you the deficiencies in that material.  Are you willing to do this?

You see, I can talk until I'm blue in the face, but unless you are willing to learn, then there isn't any point.  I can only judge your behavior by what I have seen here on this thread, and honestly, so far it is not impressive.

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose or not realizing it, but you have been caught in numerous logical fallacies... indeed, almost a textbook argument of the kind creationists use.  Argument by analogy, argument by authority, goalpost-shifting, quote-mining, and that's not to mention the fundamental mistakes in biology, chemistry, and physics so far.  Which, BTW, we have attempted to correct, but you don't seem to be interested in learning.

Just continuing to insist that the Big Bang was an actual explosion of the nuclear or (possibly sub-nuclear) kind shows that you have not even read some of the basics from actual scientists.

Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,13:30

Oh and I meant fossil man is much more robust than modern man
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,13:38

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31)
Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In some instances after selong separations or bottle necks like with the donkey, a critter will experience deletions due to inbreeding and will no longer retain a good ability to reproduce fertile offspring with its ancestor. However, no significant changes take place, especially on par to the vast differences between an ape and human
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,13:41

I'll be back
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 23 2011,13:48

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,14:16)
To say that the earth follows uniformitarianism but cosmological forces do not is denying that cosmological processes effect the earth, Which is pseudoscience again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Tardbucket.
 

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,14:16)
but then you also conform to a belief that the earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No. Tardbucket.


Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,14:16)
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh? Then explain why we are here and they are not, Tardbucket. You might want to think about the term "robust" and what it does and does not mean, and how that relates to the environment at any given place and time.

On second thought, you should just put a period after "think" in that last sentence. Tardbucket.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 23 2011,13:49

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:49)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


jeannot is correct on that score, and certainly the concept of an "explosion" - which is a poorly defined concept at best - doesn't have a lot of use in the field of paleoanthropology (except in terms of the "creative explosion" which was current back in the 1960's but now is little used by paleoanthropologists).

By the way that picture that you claim models earth's processes is horribly inaccurate and leaves out quite a bit. You might try something like this:



Which, at least, is much more accurate.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 23 2011,13:59

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:38)
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31)
Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In some instances after selong separations or bottle necks like with the donkey, a critter will experience deletions due to inbreeding and will no longer retain a good ability to reproduce fertile offspring with its ancestor. However, no significant changes take place, especially on par to the vast differences between an ape and human
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, the differences between apes and humans are not that vast...
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 23 2011,14:18

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know, the internet is a great tool. You can search for "origin of life" and get plenty of detailed answers. You can also find lots of explanation on natural selection and evolutionary theory.
So why don't you educate yourself and come back to us when you have more specific questions?

OTOH, since you are apparently the only one to know about phenotype selection by the endocrine system, we'd love to hear the theory from an authority.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,14:20

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:16)
To say that the earth follows uniformitarianism but cosmological forces do not is denying that cosmological processes effect the earth, Which is pseudoscience again.  
but then you also conform to a belief that the earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again

If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sigh... OK, I'll give you this one... there is a Uniformitarianism in terms of natural philosophy and one in geology.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because you obviously don't have a clue, the reason that the Earth's rotation is slowing is this big ass object that hangs over our heads all the time... you may have heard of it... the moon?  It's gravitationally coupled to the Earth.  It imparts some of it's motion on the Earth and the Earth imparts some of its motion on the moon.  Since the Earth is much more massive than the moon, the Earth slows only slightly, while the moon speeds up slightly more.  Because of some fundamental laws of motion, when the moon increases in velocity, it recedes from us ever so slightly.  [Note that this is a very basic explanation and should not be argued against.  The math can be found here, as well as evidence for all of the above.  Only arguments from that material will be accepted.]

Also note that this concept has been known since [URL=E Halley (1695), "Some Account of the Ancient State of the City of Palmyra, with Short Remarks upon the Inscriptions Found there", Phil. Trans., vol.19 (1695-1697), pages 160-175; esp. at pages 174-175.]1695.[/URL]  The correctly understood answer to the question of why this happens was established in the 1860s.

Given that, I can understand someone who argues this kind of point may not have ever heard of it.  Of course, taking 3 seconds to look up Wikipedia (while not an authoritative source, I generally consider it useful enough for these discussions) and then following the links in the 'references' section for a more complete understanding.

Here are some references for you
F.R. Stephenson, L.V. Morrison (1995): "Long-term fluctuations in the Earth's rotation: 700 BC to AD 1990". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, pp.165–202. doi: 10.1098/rsta.1995.0028
Jean O. Dickey (1995): "Earth Rotation Variations from Hours to Centuries". In: I. Appenzeller (ed.): Highlights of Astronomy. Vol. 10 pp.17..44.

Now that that is out of the way.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Assertion.  Cite evidence.

Define robust in terms of early man.
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time

as well as the rest of the work you have
define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,14:44

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell you what... why don't you tell us what evidence you would find convincing.

You see, I could explain it... again, but why should I bother?  You won't be convinced.  And it's not like stuff like this doesn't exist already.

For example:
Here's the abstracts to 214 papers presented in 2009 all regarding abiogenisis.  

BTW: I'm not a chemist, you can quit lying now.
< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........164.pdf >
< Here > are < some > blog < posts > you can read... oh, this blog (mine) is also going through, chapter by chapter, of "< The Emergence of Life >" by Luisi.  If you are interested in transitional fossils, you might find my chapter by chapter review of "< Your Inner Fish >" enlightening.

You see, people like you really are intellectual cowards.  You are scared to look up things that may interfere with your belief system.  

For example, the reasoning behind the slowing of the Earth's rotation has been known for almost 150 years, yet you don't know what it is.  You don't know how we know this, you haven't read any of the research, the math, the history of discovery, the evidence or even that it is a known process.

Likewise for the basic evidence you claim we won't tell you about.  There's a reason for that.  We don't have to.  The basics of evolutionary theory have been known since before Darwin.  The principles of change over time, mutation, natural selection, the genetic integration with modern evolutionary history, population dynamics, principles of speciation are not new concepts.  The most recent of these has been known for over 70 years.  

At this point, we're working on details, you're still wondering what's going on.

In the exact same way that civil engineers don't show their work when they talk about gravity in structure design, or electrical engineers don't recreate the derivation of the charge of an electron in every paper... the facts that you are questioning are so confirmed that they are taught in middle school to most kids.  (Of course, in the US, because of religion, our science education is below substandard... as evidenced here.)

It is not questioned that natural selection and evolutionary principles work.  Because, they simply do work.  In fields from anthropology to aerospace engineering, factory production schedules to financial interactions, evolutionary principles produce results.

You can cry and bitch and moan all you want, you cannot overcome that simple fact.

If you claim that it was all designed, then you have fallen into a simple trap.  If everything is designed, then the designer is the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology for no other designer is needed.

Now, for your edification.  Here's all the stuff that I have previous written on these topics.  The fact that they exist and were taken from other sources just shows you have failed in your due diligence to research these topics.  




BTW... you have a lot of questions to answer.  Feel free to get started at any time.< Microevolution - what is it really >

< Selection or Design >

< Speciation >

< Evidence for Macroevolution >

< What is Macroevolution >

< Natural Selection >

And when you are done with those you might take a look at < What is Intelligent Design >
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,15:45

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,13:49)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:49)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


jeannot is correct on that score, and certainly the concept of an "explosion" - which is a poorly defined concept at best - doesn't have a lot of use in the field of paleoanthropology (except in terms of the "creative explosion" which was current back in the 1960's but now is little used by paleoanthropologists).

By the way that picture that you claim models earth's processes is horribly inaccurate and leaves out quite a bit. You might try something like this:



Which, at least, is much more accurate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Though much more limited in scope than my image that is a very nice example of order from disorder but my argument with Jeannot had to do with critter diversity. Now be aware that some seem to insist that I am simply referring  population explosions that isnt the case either.

Googling the geological eras + the key word "explosion" will bring up a plethora of info on this interesting paleobiology.

Oh and please see my arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions via the big bang explosion
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,15:46

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,13:59)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:38)
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31)
Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In some instances after selong separations or bottle necks like with the donkey, a critter will experience deletions due to inbreeding and will no longer retain a good ability to reproduce fertile offspring with its ancestor. However, no significant changes take place, especially on par to the vast differences between an ape and human
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, the differences between apes and humans are not that vast...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only superficially in some areas
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,15:56

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,14:20)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:16)
To say that the earth follows uniformitarianism but cosmological forces do not is denying that cosmological processes effect the earth, Which is pseudoscience again.  
but then you also conform to a belief that the earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again

If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sigh... OK, I'll give you this one... there is a Uniformitarianism in terms of natural philosophy and one in geology.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because you obviously don't have a clue, the reason that the Earth's rotation is slowing is this big ass object that hangs over our heads all the time... you may have heard of it... the moon?  It's gravitationally coupled to the Earth.  It imparts some of it's motion on the Earth and the Earth imparts some of its motion on the moon.  Since the Earth is much more massive than the moon, the Earth slows only slightly, while the moon speeds up slightly more.  Because of some fundamental laws of motion, when the moon increases in velocity, it recedes from us ever so slightly.  [Note that this is a very basic explanation and should not be argued against.  The math can be found here, as well as evidence for all of the above.  Only arguments from that material will be accepted.]

Also note that this concept has been known since [URL=E Halley (1695), "Some Account of the Ancient State of the City of Palmyra, with Short Remarks upon the Inscriptions Found there", Phil. Trans., vol.19 (1695-1697), pages 160-175; esp. at pages 174-175.]1695.[/URL]  The correctly understood answer to the question of why this happens was established in the 1860s.

Given that, I can understand someone who argues this kind of point may not have ever heard of it.  Of course, taking 3 seconds to look up Wikipedia (while not an authoritative source, I generally consider it useful enough for these discussions) and then following the links in the 'references' section for a more complete understanding.

Here are some references for you
F.R. Stephenson, L.V. Morrison (1995): "Long-term fluctuations in the Earth's rotation: 700 BC to AD 1990". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, pp.165–202. doi: 10.1098/rsta.1995.0028
Jean O. Dickey (1995): "Earth Rotation Variations from Hours to Centuries". In: I. Appenzeller (ed.): Highlights of Astronomy. Vol. 10 pp.17..44.

Now that that is out of the way.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Assertion.  Cite evidence.

Define robust in terms of early man.
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time

as well as the rest of the work you have
define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thus, you admit there is no uniformitarianism

I made it clear that I made a typographical error and humans are becoming less robust with time but I guess y'all need your straws

Plus, you insist that I go to wiki for definitions yet you cant even bother with looking up things like endocrine system, nucleosynthesis, human robustness, ect ect..

I never seen so many double standards from one cite in my life
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 23 2011,16:10

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,16:46)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,13:59)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:38)
 
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31)
Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In some instances after selong separations or bottle necks like with the donkey, a critter will experience deletions due to inbreeding and will no longer retain a good ability to reproduce fertile offspring with its ancestor. However, no significant changes take place, especially on par to the vast differences between an ape and human
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, the differences between apes and humans are not that vast...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only superficially in some areas
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Google "scurvy", Tardbucket.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,16:11

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
[quote=OgreMkV,Oct. 23 2011,13:11]
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)


Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of double standards, y'all still havnt answered my question above and I guess would rather focus on eunuchs, hairless dogs, and wiki definitions rather than comparing proven Endocrine system adaptation with your natural mutation selection
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,16:16

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,16:10)
Google "scurvy", Tardbucket.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Google Canine Scurvy
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 23 2011,16:18

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,14:16)
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am sure you have studied up on that, a great deal.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 23 2011,16:19

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,15:45)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,13:49)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:49)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


jeannot is correct on that score, and certainly the concept of an "explosion" - which is a poorly defined concept at best - doesn't have a lot of use in the field of paleoanthropology (except in terms of the "creative explosion" which was current back in the 1960's but now is little used by paleoanthropologists).

By the way that picture that you claim models earth's processes is horribly inaccurate and leaves out quite a bit. You might try something like this:



Which, at least, is much more accurate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Though much more limited in scope than my image that is a very nice example of order from disorder but my argument with Jeannot had to do with critter diversity. Now be aware that some seem to insist that I am simply referring  population explosions that isnt the case either.

Googling the geological eras + the key word "explosion" will bring up a plethora of info on this interesting paleobiology.

Oh and please see my arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions via the big bang explosion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .< But I accept your challange! > Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 23 2011,16:21

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:11)
[quote=forastero,Oct. 23 2011,13:28]
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,13:11)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)


Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of double standards, y'all still havnt answered my question above and I guess would rather focus on eunuchs, hairless dogs, and wiki definitions rather than comparing proven Endocrine system adaptation with your natural mutation selection
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i want you to focus on hairless eunuchs.  some more.  tell me, are hairless eunuchs now less robust than they were in fossil men?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 23 2011,16:26

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:16)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,16:10)
Google "scurvy", Tardbucket.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Google Canine Scurvy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's next? "Marsupial wolves are just like placental wolves"?

Tardbucket.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 23 2011,16:27

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,16:11)
[quote=forastero,Oct. 23 2011,13:28]
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,13:11)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)


Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of double standards, y'all still havnt answered my question above and I guess would rather focus on eunuchs, hairless dogs, and wiki definitions rather than comparing proven Endocrine system adaptation with your natural mutation selection
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only scientist I know of who gave a role in evolution to the endocrine system is Carleton Coon, and his views on the subject are more than a little bit racist. Also, Schwartz's work on heat shock proteins. So do, please, elaborate for us.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 23 2011,16:29

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,16:26)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:16)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,16:10)
Google "scurvy", Tardbucket.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Google Canine Scurvy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's next? "Marsupial wolves are just like placental wolves"?

Tardbucket.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, pretty please, I loved that Byers thread! Brought a tear to my eye when it ended :(
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,16:31

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,09:07)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   Excellent.  So some things are designed and some things are not.

Please provide an example and cite the evidence that you used to draw this conclusion.

Note that "It is complex." and "It looks designed." are not evidence.  They are cop-outs.

I can provide dozens of examples of insanely complex structures and systems that were not designed.  I can also provide systems and structures that look as if they were designed, but they were not designed.

If you make the claim that they really are designed, then you are making the claim that everything was designed.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------




There are designs and derivatives of design but even the derivatives are implemented into the grand scheme of things. Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles
[/quote]

OK, you have got to be a Poe.

Assertion, evidence please.

BTW: 'poo' as you so eloquently describe it, is material that is indigestible by whatever organism is ejecting it.  Interestingly, many things are indigestible, because the organism has lost the ability to digest that material due to mutation.  Oops.

   [quote][/quote]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok I'll play your game

Poo is important for many food chains and cycles. In fact, I used to use guano and worm poo by the tons in some very elaborate gardens.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 23 2011,16:33

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 23 2011,11:58)
deny what, you credulous git?  that the cambrian explosion wasn't really an explosion?

i realize you are probably trying to sound stupid here as part of your shtick but i think you are overselling it a tad.  try backing off, mentioning hitler, more perhaps something about moral relativism, less about actual facts.  the dance will last longer.  just a thought luv
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then try to prove that it wasnt an explosion of benthic diversity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


what, is "explosion of diversity" somehow supposed to make more sense than "cambrian explosion"

psst forastero we know fundie idiots have trouble with the difference between literal and figurative but i'll give you a hint.  a blow job doesn't mean taping an M-90 to your balls

i've said it before, i'll say it again, more hitler means jesus died for our sins stuff
Posted by: khan on Oct. 23 2011,16:42

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:31)
Ok I'll play your game

Poo is important for many food chains and cycles. In fact, I used to use guano and worm poo by the tons in some very elaborate gardens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you old enough to be posting here?
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 23 2011,16:44

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,16:18)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,14:16)
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am sure you have studied up on that, a great deal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depends on how one defines robust. I once made the mistake of agreeing with a creationist that modern humans are less robust than their evolutionary predecessors. I thought he was using the term in its anthropological sense, which is true. He, however, had a slightly different meaning for the word robust. More in line with this:



However, the claim that many animals are less robust (in the scientific sense of the term) is false.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,16:55

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:19)
I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .< But I accept your challange! > Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you sure you are familiar with this paleobiology because to the discerning mind, Jeannot's link is about population explosions ? < http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....df]http >

Ha ha... I see that you decided to argue about the one geologic period that I hadnt mentioned in my quote below



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 23 2011,16:57

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:29)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,16:26)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:16)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,16:10)
Google "scurvy", Tardbucket.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Google Canine Scurvy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's next? "Marsupial wolves are just like placental wolves"?

Tardbucket.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, pretty please, I loved that Byers thread! Brought a tear to my eye when it ended :(
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< A fix for your jones >.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,17:03

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:27)
[quote=forastero,Oct. 23 2011,16:11]
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,13:11)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)


Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of double standards, y'all still havnt answered my question above and I guess would rather focus on eunuchs, hairless dogs, and wiki definitions rather than comparing proven Endocrine system adaptation with your natural mutation selection
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only scientist I know of who gave a role in evolution to the endocrine system is Carleton Coon, and his views on the subject are more than a little bit racist. Also, Schwartz's work on heat shock proteins. So do, please, elaborate for us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong again. Carlton Coon and his ilk hated the thought of purposeful adaptation and ID. He was a neodarwinist who like the Darwinist believed in the preservation of favored races via exploitation, eugenics, genocide, war, etc etc ...
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,17:06

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:44)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 23 2011,16:18)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,14:16)
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am sure you have studied up on that, a great deal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depends on how one defines robust. I once made the mistake of agreeing with a creationist that modern humans are less robust than their evolutionary predecessors. I thought he was using the term in its anthropological sense, which is true. He, however, had a slightly different meaning for the word robust. More in line with this:



However, the claim that many animals are less robust (in the scientific sense of the term) is false.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong again. Pick most any critter I i'll show you a more robust ancestor
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,17:12

except maybe the blue whale but one bigger will pop up sooner or later
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,17:15

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,16:55)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:19)
I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .< But I accept your challange! > Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you sure you are familiar with this paleobiology because to the discerning mind, Jeannot's link is about population explosions ? [URL=http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers/pubs/Rogers-E-49-608.pdf]http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf]http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....df]

Ha ha... I see that you decided to argue about the one geologic period that I hadnt mentioned in my quote below

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oops fixed that link
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,17:18

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:15)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:19)
I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .< But I accept your challange! > Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you sure you are familiar with this paleobiology because to the discerning mind, Jeannot's link is about population explosion? < http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf >
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 23 2011,17:19

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:06)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:44)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 23 2011,16:18)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,14:16)
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am sure you have studied up on that, a great deal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depends on how one defines robust. I once made the mistake of agreeing with a creationist that modern humans are less robust than their evolutionary predecessors. I thought he was using the term in its anthropological sense, which is true. He, however, had a slightly different meaning for the word robust. More in line with this:



However, the claim that many animals are less robust (in the scientific sense of the term) is false.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong again. Pick most any critter I i'll show you a more robust ancestor
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay, define robust.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,17:20

Hmm..you guys sure are taking a long time to find a robust critter
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,17:22

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:19)
Okay, define robust.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ha ha thats funny

Mass, density, etc etc..
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 23 2011,17:23

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:18)
[quote=forastero,Oct. 23 2011,17:15][/quote]
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:19)
I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .< But I accept your challange! > Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you sure you are familiar with this paleobiology because to the discerning mind, Jeannot's link is about population explosion? < http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly what I said, jeanot was talking about population demographics, you were not. As I said in the context of Pleistocene anthropology explosion is always used in the context of populations. I did google all the other periods but, found nothing that supports your point.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,17:24

I'll let you work on that for a while but dont worry I'll be back

Oh and forget to figure out how to define natural mutation seltion
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,17:25

I mean dont forget .....
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 23 2011,17:27

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:22)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:19)
Okay, define robust.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ha ha thats funny

Mass, density, etc etc..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So it is the creationist meaning of robust that your are referring to and not the scientific meaning then? Because in paleontology and paleoanthropology robust is not a measure of size.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 23 2011,17:34

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:44)
Depends on how one defines robust. I once made the mistake of agreeing with a creationist that modern humans are less robust than their evolutionary predecessors. I thought he was using the term in its anthropological sense, which is true. He, however, had a slightly different meaning for the word robust. More in line with this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice call, afarensis.

 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,18:12)
except maybe the blue whale but one bigger will pop up sooner or later
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Tardbucket.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,17:34

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:23)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:18)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:15)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:19)
I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .< But I accept your challange! > Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you sure you are familiar with this paleobiology because to the discerning mind, Jeannot's link is about population explosion? < http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly what I said, jeanot was talking about population demographics, you were not. As I said in the context of Pleistocene anthropology explosion is always used in the context of populations. I did google all the other periods but, found nothing that supports your point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uh,,thats not my link. Its the only link that Jeannot "claimed" to be able to find after he googled "pleistocene explosion"

Its denial at its best but thanks guys for presenting your intellectual integrity to the cyber world

btw, Primitive ego-defenses include, projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defense mechanisms. Also, devaluation and projective identification are seen as borderline defenses. Projection is attributing your own repressed thoughts to someone else. 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 .
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 23 2011,17:37

< This seems an appropriate link > RE: Tardbucket.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 23 2011,17:39

< As does this >.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,17:41

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:27)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:22)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:19)
Okay, define robust.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ha ha thats funny

Mass, density, etc etc..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So it is the creationist meaning of robust that your are referring to and not the scientific meaning then? Because in paleontology and paleoanthropology robust is not a measure of size.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


thats so funny its sad

So not to look like the cop out that it is, why dont you provide the "anthropological" definition of robustness
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 23 2011,17:43

do we really have a live one? after all this time? really? Can I pet it? If I pet it, it won't die will it? That always happens. That always happens and you always say it's not my fault, but it is. it is.

Can i pet it? cAn i?
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 23 2011,17:45

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,17:37)
< This seems an appropriate link > RE: Tardbucket.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Btw, only the eugenics or supremacist minded would constantly and publicly project the word tard
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 23 2011,17:46

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,18:45)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,17:37)
< This seems an appropriate link > RE: Tardbucket.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Btw, only the eugenics or supremacist minded would constantly and publicly project the word tard
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cure your ignorance, Tardbucket.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,17:50

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,15:56)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,14:20)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:16)
To say that the earth follows uniformitarianism but cosmological forces do not is denying that cosmological processes effect the earth, Which is pseudoscience again.  
but then you also conform to a belief that the earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again

If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sigh... OK, I'll give you this one... there is a Uniformitarianism in terms of natural philosophy and one in geology.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Because you obviously don't have a clue, the reason that the Earth's rotation is slowing is this big ass object that hangs over our heads all the time... you may have heard of it... the moon?  It's gravitationally coupled to the Earth.  It imparts some of it's motion on the Earth and the Earth imparts some of its motion on the moon.  Since the Earth is much more massive than the moon, the Earth slows only slightly, while the moon speeds up slightly more.  Because of some fundamental laws of motion, when the moon increases in velocity, it recedes from us ever so slightly.  [Note that this is a very basic explanation and should not be argued against.  The math can be found here, as well as evidence for all of the above.  Only arguments from that material will be accepted.]

Also note that this concept has been known since [URL=E Halley (1695), "Some Account of the Ancient State of the City of Palmyra, with Short Remarks upon the Inscriptions Found there", Phil. Trans., vol.19 (1695-1697), pages 160-175; esp. at pages 174-175.]1695.[/URL]  The correctly understood answer to the question of why this happens was established in the 1860s.

Given that, I can understand someone who argues this kind of point may not have ever heard of it.  Of course, taking 3 seconds to look up Wikipedia (while not an authoritative source, I generally consider it useful enough for these discussions) and then following the links in the 'references' section for a more complete understanding.

Here are some references for you
F.R. Stephenson, L.V. Morrison (1995): "Long-term fluctuations in the Earth's rotation: 700 BC to AD 1990". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, pp.165–202. doi: 10.1098/rsta.1995.0028
Jean O. Dickey (1995): "Earth Rotation Variations from Hours to Centuries". In: I. Appenzeller (ed.): Highlights of Astronomy. Vol. 10 pp.17..44.

Now that that is out of the way.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Assertion.  Cite evidence.

Define robust in terms of early man.
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time

as well as the rest of the work you have
define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thus, you admit there is no uniformitarianism

I made it clear that I made a typographical error and humans are becoming less robust with time but I guess y'all need your straws

Plus, you insist that I go to wiki for definitions yet you cant even bother with looking up things like endocrine system, nucleosynthesis, human robustness, ect ect..

I never seen so many double standards from one cite in my life
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No... can you read?

It admitted that uniformatarianism is a concept that is used in geology AND natural philosophy.  As such, it is not completely spelled out in cosmology, other than its role in natural philosophy.

However, what you fail to grasp, is that the two concepts are not the same.  You have also not objected to any of the examples I provided.

I sent you the Wikipedia links, because they are pretty good for your level of understanding, which is seriously lacking.  

You still haven't touched on anything on my list, except the definition of robust.
as well as the rest of the work you have
define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.
[strike]Define robust in terms of early man.[/strike]
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time

Oh, and you wanted an example where the modern form is more robust that the primitive form

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....siensis >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,17:51

Oh yeah,

what is your alternative explanation?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 23 2011,18:01

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 23 2011,17:43)
do we really have a live one? after all this time? really? Can I pet it? If I pet it, it won't die will it? That always happens. That always happens and you always say it's not my fault, but it is. it is.

Can i pet it? cAn i?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evidently forastero is so stupid he thinks saying the most words is winning the debate.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 23 2011,18:18

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 23 2011,19:01)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 23 2011,17:43)
do we really have a live one? after all this time? really? Can I pet it? If I pet it, it won't die will it? That always happens. That always happens and you always say it's not my fault, but it is. it is.

Can i pet it? cAn i?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evidently forastero is so stupid he thinks saying the most words is winning the debate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


in that he is not singular
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 23 2011,18:24

You know what I don't get...

Here he is and he obviously has some ideas, yet he won't actually talk about his ideas.

Here's his chance to get some serious feedback on these ideas of his, there are a number of Ph.D.s and gifted non-doctorates here who can review, point out mistakes, suggest alternative resources, etc...

And he's trying to argue that the Big Bang started by nuclear fusion.  

Is it any wonder these types are never taken seriously in the real scientific culture?

For example, his statement that 'the endocrine system selects the phenotype'.  We've asked dozens of times for an explanation.  A real scientist would be all over himself talking about it.  We probably couldn't get him to shut up about it, but not the creationist, he refuses to even link to articles to support it.

What's freaking hilarious is that I, after 5 seconds on google and about 20 minutes of reading, probably know more about it than our friend here.

For example, the research here of embryologic development in birds.http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1497/1635.full

I'll point out that the endocrine system doesn't SELECT the phenotype, but may regulate the EXPRESSION of the phenotype.  There is a huge difference, not that I expect forastero to understand that.

For example, in humans, the sex of the offspring is directly related to the presence of the Y chromosome.  Allowing exceptions for chromosomal mutations, there is no environmental change that can change the sex of the offspring once conception happens.  Of course, this is not true for many reptile species, where the sex of the offspring is dependent on the temperature of the egg during development.

I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.

Of course, what's really funny is in these various papers, the assumption is that species evolve and through a variety of mechanisms.  So, forastero, does evolution happen?  If it happens at all, then simple time will ensure the development of species and greater divisions.  Your only solution is to deny that evolution happens at all... in which case, this entire argument is a moot point.

BTW: Here's an interesting diagram and information, that may seem to support forastero at first glance, but it still doesn't actually support his claim that the endocrine system selects the phenotype.  http://jme.endocrinology-journals.org/content/46/1/R11/F1.expansion.html

Influence expression, sure.  Influence phenotype, no, can't happen.  And that's why, forastero, that I keep wanting you to define phenotype.  Because once you do, then you will see that the endocrine system CANNOT SELECT THE PHENOTYPE.

Hint: When is the phenotype of an organism expressed?
Posted by: SoonerintheBluegrass on Oct. 23 2011,18:43

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:45)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,17:37)
< This seems an appropriate link > RE: Tardbucket.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Btw, only the eugenics or supremacist minded would constantly and publicly project the word tard
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tard, as refers to you and your ilk, is actually an acronym:

The
Argument
Regarding
Design

Is it a bit crude?  Yes.  Is it intended as a perjorative?  Yes.  Is it intended to associate you with the (involuntarily) mentally handicapped, or to insult the mentally handicapped?  No.  

So please do climb down off your cross.
Posted by: paragwinn on Oct. 23 2011,19:02

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,10:52)
Hmm speaking of explosions, there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are these the explosions you are thinking of?
< Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event >
< Silurian Period >
< Life of the Devonian >
< Climate and the Carboniferous Period >
Posted by: paragwinn on Oct. 23 2011,19:15

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,17:02)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,10:52)
Hmm speaking of explosions, there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


or these?
< Fossil insects and associated plants from the Late Triassic Molteno Formation of South Africa >
< SHARKS HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR MORE THAN 450 MILLION YEARS >
< Paleoenvironments of the Jurassic and Cretaceous Oceans: Selected Highlights >
< The Jurassic: The Mammal Explosion - History and Analysis of the Discovery Today Challenging the Conventional View of Our Ancestors from the Early Jurassic Onward >
< Dinosaurs and the Cretaceous Terrestrial Revolution >
Posted by: paragwinn on Oct. 23 2011,19:41

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,17:15)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,10:52)
Hmm speaking of explosions, there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


or any of these?
< THE PALEOCENE EPOCH >
< Evidence for a Paleocene Evolutionary Radiation >
< Ancient dolphins – the fossil record >
< Equidae >
< The Pleistocene and the Origins of Human Culture >
Posted by: dnmlthr on Oct. 23 2011,23:20

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,15:22)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:19)
Okay, define robust.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ha ha thats funny

Mass, density, etc etc..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hahaha, oh wow.

< The concept of island dwarfism disagrees >
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 24 2011,00:32

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:20)
Hmm..you guys sure are taking a long time to find a robust critter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the horse?

the blue whale?
EDIT: given the billion of species that existed I'm pretty sure you can find an ancestor that was more robust than a extant descendent... or weaker. Depends on which ancestor you pick.

What's your point?
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 24 2011,00:44

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:34)
Uh,,thats not my link. Its the only link that Jeannot "claimed" to be able to find after he googled "pleistocene explosion"

Its denial at its best but thanks guys for presenting your intellectual integrity to the cyber world

btw, Primitive ego-defenses include, projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defense mechanisms. Also, devaluation and projective identification are seen as borderline defenses. Projection is attributing your own repressed thoughts to someone else. 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 .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Primitive ego-defenses include, projection, denial, "
Projecting much?
You mentioned some "pleistocene explosions", but you didn't have clue. It's ok, you can admit it. Everyone makes mistake.  (If talking out of one's a$$ is a mistake.)
Are you blaming us for your inability to post a web link? Are you being repressed by our denial?

You'd better reply to that with your examples of "pleistocene radiations", if you want to earn some respect here. But I guess the martyr position is more comfortable.
Posted by: George on Oct. 24 2011,02:23

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,17:50)
 ... 

You still haven't touched on anything on my list, except the definition of robust.
as well as the rest of the work you have
define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.
[strike]Define robust in terms of early man.[/strike]
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time

Oh, and you wanted an example where the modern form is more robust that the primitive form

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......siensis >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't distract him!  I think I speak for everyone here (well, ok, maybe just 'Ras) when I want to hear more about his theory that coprophagy proves design.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are designs and derivatives of design but even the derivatives are implemented into the grand scheme of things. Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 24 2011,03:26

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,23:32)
Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




The Designer's enhanced cycle runs on poo.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 24 2011,06:10

Quote (George @ Oct. 24 2011,08:23)
Don't distract him!  I think I speak for everyone here (well, ok, maybe just 'Ras) when I want to hear more about his theory that coprophagy proves design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this something to do with 'Mud to Mozart'?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 24 2011,06:29

from shit to silverstein!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 24 2011,06:30

more about slime to proust, hitler therefore baby jesus, please
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 24 2011,06:40

Can anyone say "Gish Gallop"?

I wonder if the new Wunderkind of T.A.R.D. can stick to one single claim. My prediction: heliotrope!

Louis
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 24 2011,06:56

I wouldn't be surprised if we got an Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) denialist on our hands, therefore this news of today as an example of how science actually works:

< Berkeley Earth Project >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Translated from Swedish by Quack):
Behind the results we find among others one of the 2011 Nobel laureates in physics, Saul Perlmutter, and it has been led by the American physicist Richard Muller. He has been an outspoken critic of parts of the methods of climate research and wanted to check the conclusions of the British researchers that was alleged to have been dressing their figures in the so-called Climategate, later they’ve been freed by independent researchers.
Money for the new research was put up, among others by American oil billionaires that also support climate skeptical lobbyist groups. And the results show an increase of nearly 1°C  average land temperature the past 100 years.
The new curve also looks almost exactly like the three earlier produced by different research groups in the USA and Great Britain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: paragwinn on Oct. 24 2011,07:00

from ordure to Orff

from feces to Ninety-Five Theses

from BM to BMW
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 24 2011,07:00

References to Of Mice and Men and factual information aside, I think our new friend didn't expect the < Spanish inquisition >!

Ok, I'll admit this was posted for comedic value and doesn't add anything to the discussion, but when I left yesterday the thread was 3 pages, and now it's 6.


I'm a slow reader...
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 24 2011,07:21

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 24 2011,07:00)
References to Of Mice and Men and factual information aside, I think our new friend didn't expect the < Spanish inquisition >!

Ok, I'll admit this was posted for comedic value and doesn't add anything to the discussion, but when I left yesterday the thread was 3 pages, and now it's 6.


I'm a slow reader...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude, I left at four pages to go watch Tron: Legacy with the boy and came back to 6 pages.

I hope we didn't break him.  I mean, who are we expecting to actually support his statements>!>!>
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Oct. 24 2011,07:36



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Dude, I left at four pages to go watch Tron: Legacy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'm so, so terribly sorry. My thoughts are with you.
Posted by: Gunthernacus on Oct. 24 2011,09:23

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,18:12)
except maybe the blue whale but one bigger will pop up sooner or later
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


An ID prediction! </confetti>  Using this new robustness measure - ID is sure to replace current science.

 
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 24 2011,08:00)
from feces to Ninety-Five Theses
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


POTW!
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 24 2011,09:47

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 24 2011,07:00)
from ordure to Orff

from feces to Ninety-Five Theses

from BM to BMW
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From poo to you by way of the loo.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 24 2011,10:22

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 24 2011,15:47)
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 24 2011,07:00)
from ordure to Orff

from feces to Ninety-Five Theses

from BM to BMW
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From poo to you by way of the loo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tracy Hamilton and Paragwinn both get my vote for POTW.

Tracy, you get the PO, Paragwinn you get the TW. No swapsies no squabbling.

Louis
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 24 2011,12:04

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 24 2011,07:47)
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 24 2011,07:00)
from ordure to Orff

from feces to Ninety-Five Theses

from BM to BMW
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From poo to you by way of the loo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From turd to tard.  And back again.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 24 2011,12:15

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 24 2011,08:47)
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 24 2011,07:00)
from ordure to Orff

from feces to Ninety-Five Theses

from BM to BMW
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From poo to you by way of the loo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is that the poo the whole poo and nothing but the poo?
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 24 2011,12:31

- Gish Gallop.
- Spectacular arrogance.
- Spectacular ignorance.
- Refusal to accept being wrong about anything, even the most minor off-topic comment.

Combined with his/her shaky grasp of the English language, the conclusion's obvious: forastero is afdave's Portuguese cousin.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 24 2011,12:37

Falando do quem, has AFDave been seen anywhere recently?

He discovered an[other] exciting business opportunity when Febble et al painted him into the corner of a zircon crystal at TalkOrigins a few months ago.

It would be such as shame to lose the Internet's premier resource for countering creationism.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 24 2011,13:32

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 24 2011,18:31)
- Gish Gallop.
- Spectacular arrogance.
- Spectacular ignorance.
- Refusal to accept being wrong about anything, even the most minor off-topic comment.

Combined with his/her shaky grasp of the English language, the conclusion's obvious: forastero is afdave's Portuguese cousin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Forastero is a combination of French and Spanish?

Louis
Posted by: Wolfhound on Oct. 24 2011,14:00

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 24 2011,07:10)
Quote (George @ Oct. 24 2011,08:23)
Don't distract him!  I think I speak for everyone here (well, ok, maybe just 'Ras) when I want to hear more about his theory that coprophagy proves design.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is this something to do with 'Mud to Mozart'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I like "From Poo To You By Way of Teh Jew".
Posted by: Wolfhound on Oct. 24 2011,14:03

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 24 2011,13:37)
Falando do quem, has AFDave been seen anywhere recently?

He discovered an[other] exciting business opportunity when Febble et al painted him into the corner of a zircon crystal at TalkOrigins a few months ago.

It would be such as shame to lose the Internet's premier resource for countering creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd been wondering, myself.  Deadman and I wax nostalgic about him once in a while.  Lousy pillow talk but still amusing.
Posted by: Ra-Úl on Oct. 24 2011,14:05

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 24 2011,13:32)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 24 2011,18:31)
- Gish Gallop.
- Spectacular arrogance.
- Spectacular ignorance.
- Refusal to accept being wrong about anything, even the most minor off-topic comment.

Combined with his/her shaky grasp of the English language, the conclusion's obvious: forastero is afdave's Portuguese cousin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Forastero is a combination of French and Spanish?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'Forastero means 'stranger' or 'foreigner' in Spanish. From a Catalan word. I was trying to find a Portuguese cognate for a weak pun, but no luck. I like how Forastero use 'y'all' and other Americanisms. Foreigners find other foreigner's English very amusing.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 24 2011,15:13

Quote (Ra-Úl @ Oct. 24 2011,20:05)
'Forastero means 'stranger' or 'foreigner' in Spanish. From a Catalan word. I was trying to find a Portuguese cognate for a weak pun, but no luck. I like how Forastero use 'y'all' and other Americanisms. Foreigners find other foreigner's English very amusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe 'Forastero' is just a misspelling of 'For Hysterics'?

Apropos nothing in particular, in Dublin, the English word for someone of a different nationality is pronounced fardn.

(Similarly, the < local newspaper published during the afternoon > is termed the Eden Heddle.)

Thank you for your attention during this short digression.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 24 2011,15:21

Quote (Ra-Úl @ Oct. 24 2011,20:05)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 24 2011,13:32)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 24 2011,18:31)
- Gish Gallop.
- Spectacular arrogance.
- Spectacular ignorance.
- Refusal to accept being wrong about anything, even the most minor off-topic comment.

Combined with his/her shaky grasp of the English language, the conclusion's obvious: forastero is afdave's Portuguese cousin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Forastero is a combination of French and Spanish?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'Forastero means 'stranger' or 'foreigner' in Spanish. From a Catalan word. I was trying to find a Portuguese cognate for a weak pun, but no luck. I like how Forastero use 'y'all' and other Americanisms. Foreigners find other foreigner's English very amusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was referring to AFDave's much laughed at claim that Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French. So when JohnW asked (tongue in cheek I am guessing) if our new chew toy is AFDave's Portuguese cousin, well, it was an obvious in-joke.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 24 2011,15:23

Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 24 2011,20:03)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 24 2011,13:37)
Falando do quem, has AFDave been seen anywhere recently?

He discovered an[other] exciting business opportunity when Febble et al painted him into the corner of a zircon crystal at TalkOrigins a few months ago.

It would be such as shame to lose the Internet's premier resource for countering creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd been wondering, myself.  Deadman and I wax nostalgic about him once in a while.  Lousy pillow talk but still amusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


THAT'S what gets you hot? Impressive.

"Oooooh baby, tell me how big the error is in YEC's claims about the age of the earth"

"Six orders of magnitude"

"<Something about your cock>"

"That'll do! Annnnnnnnnd relax!"

Louis
Posted by: George on Oct. 24 2011,15:52

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 24 2011,15:13)
Quote (Ra-Úl @ Oct. 24 2011,20:05)
'Forastero means 'stranger' or 'foreigner' in Spanish. From a Catalan word. I was trying to find a Portuguese cognate for a weak pun, but no luck. I like how Forastero use 'y'all' and other Americanisms. Foreigners find other foreigner's English very amusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe 'Forastero' is just a misspelling of 'For Hysterics'?

Apropos nothing in particular, in Dublin, the English word for someone of a different nationality is pronounced fardn.

(Similarly, the < local newspaper published during the afternoon > is termed the Eden Heddle.)

Thank you for your attention during this short digression.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No wooddies, mistah.

(Edited for more hanging out at the Square in Tallaght on a wet Tuesday night -ness.)
Posted by: Ra-Úl on Oct. 24 2011,15:58

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 24 2011,15:21)
Quote (Ra-Úl @ Oct. 24 2011,20:05)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 24 2011,13:32)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 24 2011,18:31)
- Gish Gallop.
- Spectacular arrogance.
- Spectacular ignorance.
- Refusal to accept being wrong about anything, even the most minor off-topic comment.

Combined with his/her shaky grasp of the English language, the conclusion's obvious: forastero is afdave's Portuguese cousin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Forastero is a combination of French and Spanish?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'Forastero means 'stranger' or 'foreigner' in Spanish. From a Catalan word. I was trying to find a Portuguese cognate for a weak pun, but no luck. I like how Forastero use 'y'all' and other Americanisms. Foreigners find other foreigner's English very amusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was referring to AFDave's much laughed at claim that Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French. So when JohnW asked (tongue in cheek I am guessing) if our new chew toy is AFDave's Portuguese cousin, well, it was an obvious in-joke.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know. I am an afdave stalker. I just wanted to find a pun on 'forastero' in Spanish and Portugese (or French, but my French is worse than can be imagined) an could not work one out. I am disappointed in my multilingual punning ability.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Oct. 24 2011,16:23

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 24 2011,16:23)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 24 2011,20:03)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 24 2011,13:37)
Falando do quem, has AFDave been seen anywhere recently?

He discovered an[other] exciting business opportunity when Febble et al painted him into the corner of a zircon crystal at TalkOrigins a few months ago.

It would be such as shame to lose the Internet's premier resource for countering creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd been wondering, myself.  Deadman and I wax nostalgic about him once in a while.  Lousy pillow talk but still amusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


THAT'S what gets you hot? Impressive.

"Oooooh baby, tell me how big the error is in YEC's claims about the age of the earth"

"Six orders of magnitude"

"<Something about your cock>"

"That'll do! Annnnnnnnnd relax!"

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OMG HOW DID YOU KNOW?!11!!

*looks around bedroom for super-secret spy-type bugs*
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 24 2011,17:10

Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 24 2011,14:03)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 24 2011,13:37)
Falando do quem, has AFDave been seen anywhere recently?

He discovered an[other] exciting business opportunity when Febble et al painted him into the corner of a zircon crystal at TalkOrigins a few months ago.

It would be such as shame to lose the Internet's premier resource for countering creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd been wondering, myself.  Deadman and I wax nostalgic about him once in a while.  Lousy pillow talk but still amusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd imagine it's an excellent contraceptive.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 24 2011,17:16

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 24 2011,15:10)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 24 2011,14:03)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 24 2011,13:37)
Falando do quem, has AFDave been seen anywhere recently?

He discovered an[other] exciting business opportunity when Febble et al painted him into the corner of a zircon crystal at TalkOrigins a few months ago.

It would be such as shame to lose the Internet's premier resource for countering creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd been wondering, myself.  Deadman and I wax nostalgic about him once in a while.  Lousy pillow talk but still amusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd imagine it's an excellent contraceptive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It sounds better in Portuguese.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 24 2011,18:48

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:41)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:27)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:22)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:19)
Okay, define robust.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ha ha thats funny

Mass, density, etc etc..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So it is the creationist meaning of robust that your are referring to and not the scientific meaning then? Because in paleontology and paleoanthropology robust is not a measure of size.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


thats so funny its sad

So not to look like the cop out that it is, why dont you provide the "anthropological" definition of robustness
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay so, had to watch my team lose game four of the world series and then go to work. < Here is your definition of robusticity. >

You might want to ask yourself why australopithicines come in robust and gracile forms even though they are approximately the same size and body mass.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 24 2011,19:04

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:03)
[quote=afarensis,Oct. 23 2011,16:27]
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,16:11)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,13:11)
   
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)


Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of double standards, y'all still havnt answered my question above and I guess would rather focus on eunuchs, hairless dogs, and wiki definitions rather than comparing proven Endocrine system adaptation with your natural mutation selection
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only scientist I know of who gave a role in evolution to the endocrine system is Carleton Coon, and his views on the subject are more than a little bit racist. Also, Schwartz's work on heat shock proteins. So do, please, elaborate for us.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong again. Carlton Coon and his ilk hated the thought of purposeful adaptation and ID. He was a neodarwinist who like the Darwinist believed in the preservation of favored races via exploitation, eugenics, genocide, war, etc etc ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You , apparently, have never read Coon, so here is coon on The endocrine system:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As growth is controlled by the endocrine, any shift in endocrine balance can cause radical changes in the form and appearance of the adult animal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The origin of Races pg 24

He then devotes about 8 pages later in the book to the impact of the endocrine system on human evolution. (pgs 108-116) Finally, Coon did not hate intelligent design theory because he died long before it was invented.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 24 2011,19:46

Quote (Ra-Úl @ Oct. 24 2011,15:05)
 
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 24 2011,13:32)
     
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 24 2011,18:31)
- Gish Gallop.
- Spectacular arrogance.
- Spectacular ignorance.
- Refusal to accept being wrong about anything, even the most minor off-topic comment.

Combined with his/her shaky grasp of the English language, the conclusion's obvious: forastero is afdave's Portuguese cousin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Forastero is a combination of French and Spanish?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'Forastero means 'stranger' or 'foreigner' in Spanish. From a Catalan word. I was trying to find a Portuguese cognate for a weak pun, but no luck. I like how Forastero use 'y'all' and other Americanisms. Foreigners find other foreigner's English very amusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah.

Forastero. Australian for bore.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 24 2011,23:40

He's gone - didn't get the ban he was hoping for.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 24 2011,23:57

The sad thing about all the ad hominems is that they weren't even funny. What is funny but true is that according to the ancient philosophers "Ad hominem attacks were the ultimate sign the agony of defeat” and usually by those influenced by the spiritual logos

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." By Albert Einstein
Posted by: Wolfhound on Oct. 25 2011,00:03

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,00:57)
The sad thing about all the ad hominems is that they weren't even funny. What is funny but true is that according to the ancient philosophers "Ad hominem attacks were the ultimate sign the agony of defeat” and usually by those influenced by the spiritual logos

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." By Albert Einstein
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yeah?  Well, according to even ancienter spirits, you eat poo.

See how that works?   :)
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 25 2011,00:07

Quote (dnmlthr @ Oct. 23 2011,23:20)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,15:22)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:19)
Okay, define robust.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ha ha thats funny

Mass, density, etc etc..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hahaha, oh wow.

< The concept of island dwarfism disagrees >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Those Island dwarfs had more robust ancestors too
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 25 2011,00:11

Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 25 2011,00:03)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,00:57)
The sad thing about all the ad hominems is that they weren't even funny. What is funny but true is that according to the ancient philosophers "Ad hominem attacks were the ultimate sign the agony of defeat” and usually by those influenced by the spiritual logos

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." By Albert Einstein
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yeah?  Well, according to even ancienter spirits, you eat poo.

See how that works?   :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The inquiring mind knows that everyone eats poo and around the clock
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 25 2011,00:15

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 24 2011,07:21)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 24 2011,07:00)
References to Of Mice and Men and factual information aside, I think our new friend didn't expect the < Spanish inquisition >!

Ok, I'll admit this was posted for comedic value and doesn't add anything to the discussion, but when I left yesterday the thread was 3 pages, and now it's 6.


I'm a slow reader...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude, I left at four pages to go watch Tron: Legacy with the boy and came back to 6 pages.

I hope we didn't break him.  I mean, who are we expecting to actually support his statements>!>!>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So thats your excuse to avoid explaining your so called natural mutation selection?
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 25 2011,01:04

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 24 2011,00:32)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:20)
Hmm..you guys sure are taking a long time to find a robust critter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the horse?

the blue whale?
EDIT: given the billion of species that existed I'm pretty sure you can find an ancestor that was more robust than a extant descendent... or weaker. Depends on which ancestor you pick.

What's your point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you want to add multi-toed beasts to horses ey?

Then here's a Hyracodontid (in the background to the right)
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature.....e_1.jpg >

P.S I had to delete your image and mine because for some strange reason I can no longer post or qote anything with images
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 25 2011,01:10



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Assertion.  Evidence Please.

And really.  Please explain exactly what the ENDOCRINE system is and how it SELECTS phenotypes.

For extra points, please explain what a phenotype is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just google words like Epigenetic phenotypic plasticity and/or methylation and the endocrine system and you’ll find millions of articles about how ancestral phenotypes are selected by neurotransmitters and various hormones. A phenotype is an observed expression of a gene or combination of genes. Iow, an individual trait or combination of traits that make up an individual. A genotype is combination of genes.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, you have got to be a Poe.

Assertion, evidence please.

BTW: 'poo' as you so eloquently describe it, is material that is indigestible by whatever organism is ejecting it.  Interestingly, many things are indigestible, because the organism has lost the ability to digest that material due to mutation.  Oops.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hmm..actually poo is important for many food chains and cycles. In fact, I used to use guano and worm poo by the tons in some very elaborate gardens.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You might think that, but that only shows how clueless you are about what mutation is and what a genome is.

Consider the human genome.  3 billion pairs of nucleotides, approximately 1.5% of which codes for proteins.  The chimpanzee genome differs by about 1.23%.  So, when you do some math...

The human genome differs from our nearest relative by 33 million changes.  So, as an estimate, you need about 33 million changes from one organism to another.  This varies among organisms of course.  

You, and other creationists, are the only people who actually think something like this should be possible in evolutionary theory.

It's called a straw-man attack and, as a rhetorical device, it can be effective.  In a forum like this, not so much.

I would encourage you to learn about what scientists actually say about evolution... not what creationists have quoted them saying, but their actual peer-reviewed papers.

BTW: We all note that this is STILL an attack on evolution and NOT evidence for design.  Evidence for design please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Endocrine adaptation is a fact with many verified examples but your so called natural  mutation selection is pseudoscience and probably why you refuse to try to explain it

Btw, chimps and humans actually differ by around 5% and chimps.  Mice and human share about 98 %.

< http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks....f >  Chimp Chromosome structure is also much different from humans in that they have have 10% more DNA , more alpha-hemoglobin and Rh bloodgroup genes, and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans. Plus, the tips of their chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Assertion.  Evidence please.

BTW: I can, in cats, point to a mutation, that results in a different phenotype.  We know where it happened, when it happened, and which organism had the specific mutation.  That mutation has carried through to a completely new breed of cat.

BTW2: I note that you didn't mention the use of the endocrine system in the selection of phenotypes here.  Tell us... please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cross breeding dogs does not involve mutations or even real species, so what is your point? I didn’t mention endocrine because cross breeding is phenotypic selection via domestically extracted traits from animals from all over the world. The Endocrine system was involved though

You could mention a cat yet again you didn’t.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And yet, I can provide mathematical evidence, experimental evidence, observational evidence for everything I say...

and you can't.

Tell you what.  Define species for me and I'll provide the evidence of the change you describe.  How about that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Again you say you can provide evidence but you don’t.

Species? That depends on whether you are a clumper or splitter? Darwinism is racist in its origin-see preservation of favored races where they called different races different species but in my opinion, if two critters can interbreed and produce fertile offspring then they should be considered the same species no matter how separated they are.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Assertion.  Evidence please.

I'll point out here that you are using another rhetorical device.  It's called 'goalpost shifting'.  You make a claim, when that claim is defeated you say something like, "No, that doesn't deal with this claim."

Here we were talking about the massive evidence supporting adaptation and how mutation does not automatically lead to death, but improved fitness.  Then you claim that this does not explain speciation.

Of course it doesn't explain speciation.  It wasn't intended to, but you have to shift the goalposts to make it look like your argument hasn't been totally devastated.

Tell you what. If you so choose, pick an argument and stick to it, then we can to.

BTW: I can provide dozens of peer-reviewed papers showing single generation speciation and at least on showing a single generation genus change.  But that paper is only from 30+ years ago, I don't know why I should expect anyone to know it.

So let me be very clear here.  You don't understand cosmology.  You don't understand genetics.  You use strawman attacks against positions no actual scientists hold.  You think quotes are evidence.

Yeah, about what I thought.

I'll make the same offer to you that I do to all creationists.  I will voluntarily teach you using actual science.  My only requirement is that you want to learn how the world actually works.

At the least, it will give you a better understanding of what you have to do to make valid arguments both for ID and against evolution.

I predict that you won't do it.  No creationist I have dealt with in over 20 years has accepted.  I know why... do you?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Before you made this post, I admitted that I provided the Einstein quotes because I thought you were requesting evidence for scientist who believed in ID. Now you are going to desperately grab that straw  


Speciation? Goal post shifting? You are projecting your own conformist fervor again.  First of all your best examples (enzyme eating bacteria & cycle cell anemia) aren’t even at the speciation level. No wonder y’all wont try  to explain to me  the origin of the up to 100 different Cambrian phyla.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 25 2011,01:23

Btw, the above is in response to OgreMkV
Posted by: George on Oct. 25 2011,01:33



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmm..actually poo is important for many food chains and cycles. In fact, I used to use guano and worm poo by the tons in some very elaborate gardens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Absolutely.  But your point is?  How does this demonstrate design?  Is it to do with the detritus component underpinning complex ecosystems?

Bet you've got great watermelons this year.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 25 2011,01:43

Quote (George @ Oct. 25 2011,01:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmm..actually poo is important for many food chains and cycles. In fact, I used to use guano and worm poo by the tons in some very elaborate gardens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Absolutely.  But your point is?  How does this demonstrate design?  Is it to do with the detritus component underpinning complex ecosystems?

Bet you've got great watermelons this year.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ogre asked me to give an example of a derivative of a design
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 25 2011,01:52

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:04)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 24 2011,00:32)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:20)
Hmm..you guys sure are taking a long time to find a robust critter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the horse?

the blue whale?
EDIT: given the billion of species that existed I'm pretty sure you can find an ancestor that was more robust than a extant descendent... or weaker. Depends on which ancestor you pick.

What's your point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you want to add multi-toed beasts to horses ey?

Then here's a Hyracodontid (in the background to the right)
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature.....e_1.jpg >

P.S I had to delete your image and mine because for some strange reason I can no longer post or qote anything with images
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh and here is a close up

< http://www.nawasreh.com/vb....reh.jpg >
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 25 2011,01:58

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:43)
Quote (George @ Oct. 25 2011,01:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmm..actually poo is important for many food chains and cycles. In fact, I used to use guano and worm poo by the tons in some very elaborate gardens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Absolutely.  But your point is?  How does this demonstrate design?  Is it to do with the detritus component underpinning complex ecosystems?

Bet you've got great watermelons this year.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ogre asked me to give an example of a derivative of a design
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh and the answer your other question is yes.  Ogre also asked me to prove how derivatives of designs are part of designer cycles
Posted by: George on Oct. 25 2011,02:00

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:43)
Quote (George @ Oct. 25 2011,01:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmm..actually poo is important for many food chains and cycles. In fact, I used to use guano and worm poo by the tons in some very elaborate gardens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Absolutely.  But your point is?  How does this demonstrate design?  Is it to do with the detritus component underpinning complex ecosystems?

Bet you've got great watermelons this year.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ogre asked me to give an example of a derivative of a design
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might care to elaborate on how you know poo is a "derivative of design" rather than designed itself.  Given the Designers inordinate fondness for beetles, creating a rich and varied supply of poo may be the central focus of design effort.  The engineering specification, as it were.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 25 2011,04:49

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,05:57)
The sad thing about all the ad hominems is that they weren't even funny. What is funny but true is that according to the ancient philosophers "Ad hominem attacks were the ultimate sign the agony of defeat” and usually by those influenced by the spiritual logos

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." By Albert Einstein
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Carl Sagan
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



To take up the mantle of Galileo you must not just be persecuted, you must also be correct.

Forastero, you are not correct.

Louis
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 25 2011,05:44

Forastero,
Please tell me 1 single thing that ID explains that is currently not explained.

If not, then 1 single thing that ID explains more plausibly then is current accepted.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 25 2011,06:04

Quote (George @ Oct. 25 2011,02:00)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:43)
Quote (George @ Oct. 25 2011,01:33)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hmm..actually poo is important for many food chains and cycles. In fact, I used to use guano and worm poo by the tons in some very elaborate gardens.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Absolutely.  But your point is?  How does this demonstrate design?  Is it to do with the detritus component underpinning complex ecosystems?

Bet you've got great watermelons this year.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ogre asked me to give an example of a derivative of a design
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You might care to elaborate on how you know poo is a "derivative of design" rather than designed itself.  Given the Designers inordinate fondness for beetles, creating a rich and varied supply of poo may be the central focus of design effort.  The engineering specification, as it were.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting observation concerning beetles and I cant believe it didnt dawn on me earlier.

My original quote: "There are designs and derivatives of design but even the derivatives are implemented into the grand scheme of things. Poopoo for instance is a derivative [of the digestive system] but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles"

Dung beetles were often symbolic of the creator or fertility to  Egyptians, Buddhist, Taoists, south East Asians, Minoans, Phoneticians, Indo-Europeans, various Amerindian, etc.  The dung often represented chaos that was formed by the great potter into either new life or the sun-ball. The ball taken into the earth would reemerge the metamorphosis of the dung beetle pupa. Some Scholars feel that Egyptian sarcophagus within cow-pie-like pyramids also corresponds to this symbolism. Cattle were also very important to the religion of the Egyptians and I a wonder how much of a connection there could be. Actually the megalithic astrologers were also cow people who routinely sacrificed cattle and feasted at the orgies of Baalzebub (demon + zebu or bull) = Lord of the Flies = chief bullshitter = Satan. Baalzebul can alo mean lord of the mansion, laughty house of god, mountain assembly, which equates to megaliths like ziggurats (mountain of god) or those structures mentioned above. Demonic fertility rituals and alien depictions have been closely associated in ancient cave and rock art in classical Mesopotamian/Mediterranean/MesoAmerican religions. Could Ziggurats, like the Egyptian pyramids, also represent a cow-pie? Could the so called ancient depictions of alien craft actually represent glorified demonic dung beetles?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 25 2011,06:07

EDIT: Can't be bothered engaging with the word salad master.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 25 2011,06:07

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,05:44)
Forastero,
Please tell me 1 single thing that ID explains that is currently not explained.

If not, then 1 single thing that ID explains more plausibly then is current accepted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 25 2011,06:10

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,06:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Could Ziggurats, like the Egyptian pyramids, also represent a cow-pie? Could the so called ancient depictions of alien craft actually represent glorified demonic dung beetles?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yawn.

< Been there, done that. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you saying that this book actually goes into dung beetle mythology and/or ziggurat correlations?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 25 2011,06:13

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,06:07)
Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sigh. Perhaps you should read this:

< http://www.amazon.com/Greates....&sr=1-4 >

So, here's what is currently accepted: The origin of species that we observe around us has no telic input whatsoever. Unguided evolution is the origin of biological diversity.

A specific example:  Yanoconodon allini shows a transition between modern mammals and their distant ancestors which illustrates a transitional structure in the long process of evolution of mammal ears.

< http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....-action >

Evolution explains the origin of mammalian ears via a series of such data points.

How does ID explain the origin of mammalian ears?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 25 2011,06:15

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,06:10)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,06:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Could Ziggurats, like the Egyptian pyramids, also represent a cow-pie? Could the so called ancient depictions of alien craft actually represent glorified demonic dung beetles?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yawn.

< Been there, done that. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you saying that this book actually goes into dung beetle mythology and/or ziggurat correlations?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, but it does go into stupid ideas about aliens.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Could the so called ancient depictions of alien craft actually represent glorified demonic dung beetles?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Given that you seem to accept that the "ancient depictions" are in fact alien craft I'm thinking it's right up your street.
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 25 2011,06:17

I dont think they are alien craft unless you consider the supernatural alien
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 25 2011,06:18

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,07:04)
Dung beetles were often symbolic of the creator or fertility to  Egyptians, Buddhist, Taoists, south East Asians, Minoans, Phoneticians, Indo-Europeans, various Amerindian, etc.  The dung often represented chaos that was formed by the great potter into either new life or the sun-ball. The ball taken into the earth would reemerge the metamorphosis of the dung beetle pupa. Some Scholars feel that Egyptian sarcophagus within cow-pie-like pyramids also corresponds to this symbolism. Cattle were also very important to the religion of the Egyptians and I a wonder how much of a connection there could be. Actually the megalithic astrologers were also cow people who routinely sacrificed cattle and feasted at the orgies of Baalzebub (demon + zebu or bull) = Lord of the Flies = chief bullshitter = Satan. Baalzebul can alo mean lord of the mansion, laughty house of god, mountain assembly, which equates to megaliths like ziggurats (mountain of god) or those structures mentioned above. Demonic fertility rituals and alien depictions have been closely associated in ancient cave and rock art in classical Mesopotamian/Mediterranean/MesoAmerican religions. Could Ziggurats, like the Egyptian pyramids, also represent a cow-pie? Could the so called ancient depictions of alien craft actually represent glorified demonic dung beetles?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


is this supposed to be an argument?

are one of you comprutah whizzes trying out a new tardbot?  i'll be fucked if this thing is a living breathing moron, stinks like a derivative poopoo holed up in some tupperware
Posted by: forastero on Oct. 25 2011,06:20

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,06:13)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,06:07)
Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sigh. Perhaps you should read this:

< http://www.amazon.com/Greates....&sr=1-4 >

So, here's what is currently accepted: The origin of species that we observe around us has no telic input whatsoever. Unguided evolution is the origin of biological diversity.

A specific example:  Yanoconodon allini shows a transition between modern mammals and their distant ancestors which illustrates a transitional structure in the long process of evolution of mammal ears.

< http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....-action >

Evolution explains the origin of mammalian ears via a series of such data points.

How does ID explain the origin of mammalian ears?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


,,,and I will read these soon and right after I read another article that Jeannot provided for me.
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 25 2011,06:40

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,14:20)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,06:13)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,06:07)
Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sigh. Perhaps you should read this:

< http://www.amazon.com/Greates....&sr=1-4 >

So, here's what is currently accepted: The origin of species that we observe around us has no telic input whatsoever. Unguided evolution is the origin of biological diversity.

A specific example:  Yanoconodon allini shows a transition between modern mammals and their distant ancestors which illustrates a transitional structure in the long process of evolution of mammal ears.

< http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....-action >

Evolution explains the origin of mammalian ears via a series of such data points.

How does ID explain the origin of mammalian ears?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


,,,and I will read these soon and right after I read another article that Jeannot provided for me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm glad you said reading.

Do you really think that anymore reading miles outside your peer level looking for loop holes like some tree house lawyer is going to fix your comprehension problem?

Tell us all about the great scientific achievements of Jesus and give us an estimate of his next arrival.

....Give or take a couple of millennia....

Throw in a a couple of man made religious artifacts if you like.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 25 2011,07:06

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,06:17)
I dont think they are alien craft unless you consider the supernatural alien
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you think supernatural aliens visited the earth?

What sort of craft were they then? What was in them?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 25 2011,07:18

forastero,

You have shifted the goal post again.  "The endocrine system selects the phenotype" does not equal epigenetics.

Here, this is from the first scholarly paper using the search terms you have given us

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
. A unifying theme of disease epigenetics is defects in phenotypic plasticity--cells' ability to change their behaviour in response to internal or external environmental cues.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17522677
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Phenotypic plasticity, doesn't mean what you think it means.

As far as the rest, I gave you links to at least 5 articles that I wrote, all with links to peer-reviewed research.

I'd like to add one simple fact that you have not dealt with and cannot deal with.  Evolution is used everyday to produce actual products and processes.  What is the principle of ID for living things used for... give us one tool or product that is a direct result of ID.

You can utterly defeat evolution right here (well, you can't, but I guess it's theoretically possible), but it still won't make design notions correct.  Only positive supporting evidence will do that.  Where's yours?

The fact that you have arrived at a conclusion and are now looking for evidence to support it shows that you don't have a clue about science.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 25 2011,07:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you really think that anymore reading miles outside your peer level looking for loop holes like some tree house lawyer is going to fix your comprehension problem?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



baaahaha no but he can probably troll up some meat while he looks for the glory loop hole.  after all it's not so much of a comprehension problem as it is a mental retardation
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 25 2011,07:34

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,12:20)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,06:13)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,06:07)
Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sigh. Perhaps you should read this:

< http://www.amazon.com/Greates....&sr=1-4 >

So, here's what is currently accepted: The origin of species that we observe around us has no telic input whatsoever. Unguided evolution is the origin of biological diversity.

A specific example:  Yanoconodon allini shows a transition between modern mammals and their distant ancestors which illustrates a transitional structure in the long process of evolution of mammal ears.

< http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....-action >

Evolution explains the origin of mammalian ears via a series of such data points.

How does ID explain the origin of mammalian ears?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


,,,and I will read these soon and right after I read another article that Jeannot provided for me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why? Seriously, that's a genuine question, why?

Why bother starting with things like the literature? You clearly have no concept of what you are trying to do. That's not an insult, I'd be equally lost in a field outside my own. As indeed would anyone.

If you GENUINELY care about learning then no one can do the hard work for you. Frankly, I doubt you do genuinely care, I think you're engaged in some rhetorical pissing contest and this was clear from the first post you vomited forth here.

People have, for example, asked you to explain simple concepts in your own words. They've done this not to score points but to see if you understand even the basics. If I was dealing with some chemistry denialist (just like you are a biology denialist) then I'd start slow and simple. What is a molecule for example? You might think that level of question is beneath you, and you might just reach for the copy/paste functions (this is the web after all), but you'd be missing the point. Any fool can copy and paste and give another fool the idea that he/she knows what he/she is talking about, but that's below the Dunning-Kruger threshold. The minute you start dealing with people who know what they are talking about you become transparent.

Forastero, you are transparent. You're also trying to fly too high too early. Start at the bottom, work your way up, do the basics and 99% of the "questions"/"problems" you think exist will vanish.

Mind you, given that you clearly have swallowed the IDCist koolaid, I might as well have farted into a hurricane as write anything.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 25 2011,07:35

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 25 2011,13:24)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you really think that anymore reading miles outside your peer level looking for loop holes like some tree house lawyer is going to fix your comprehension problem?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



baaahaha no but he can probably troll up some meat while he looks for the glory loop hole.  after all it's not so much of a comprehension problem as it is a mental retardation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He doesn't have to be retarded, he merely has to be ignorant and incompetent in the relevant fields of study.

Messers Dunning and Kruger strike again.

Louis
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Oct. 25 2011,07:35

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,07:07)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,05:44)
Forastero,
Please tell me 1 single thing that ID explains that is currently not explained.

If not, then 1 single thing that ID explains more plausibly then is current accepted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's with creationists' inordinate fondness for using "ya" instead of "you" (FL, JoeG, etc.)?  It's almost like it's meant to emphasize the slack-jawed stupidity of the ideas being advanced--as if the standard incompetence in spelling and grammar isn't enough of a clue.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 25 2011,07:41

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Oct. 25 2011,13:35)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,07:07)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,05:44)
Forastero,
Please tell me 1 single thing that ID explains that is currently not explained.

If not, then 1 single thing that ID explains more plausibly then is current accepted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's with creationists' inordinate fondness for using "ya" instead of "you" (FL, JoeG, etc.)?  It's almost like it's meant to emphasize the slack-jawed stupidity of the ideas being advanced--as if the standard incompetence in spelling and grammar isn't enough of a clue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's:

a) sarcastic arrogance (they think their drivel is the equal of science, thus they themselves in their ignorance are the equal of someone who actually knows what they are talking about)

b) profoundly anti-intellectual (they discount actual knowledge, actual study, actual effort as being unworthy of them or at least worthless because it contradicts them, they thus eschew the trappings of intellectual life, for example by pretending to be "just plain folks").

It's the psychology that underpins this crap that fascinates me the most nowadays.

Louis
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 25 2011,07:47

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 25 2011,08:35)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 25 2011,13:24)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you really think that anymore reading miles outside your peer level looking for loop holes like some tree house lawyer is going to fix your comprehension problem?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



baaahaha no but he can probably troll up some meat while he looks for the glory loop hole.  after all it's not so much of a comprehension problem as it is a mental retardation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He doesn't have to be retarded, he merely has to be ignorant and incompetent in the relevant fields of study.

Messers Dunning and Kruger strike again.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


he doesn't have to be....  it just works out that way i think

refusing to understand something you deny anyway is even dumber than i can imagine
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 25 2011,08:00

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 25 2011,13:47)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 25 2011,08:35)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 25 2011,13:24)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you really think that anymore reading miles outside your peer level looking for loop holes like some tree house lawyer is going to fix your comprehension problem?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



baaahaha no but he can probably troll up some meat while he looks for the glory loop hole.  after all it's not so much of a comprehension problem as it is a mental retardation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He doesn't have to be retarded, he merely has to be ignorant and incompetent in the relevant fields of study.

Messers Dunning and Kruger strike again.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


he doesn't have to be....  it just works out that way i think

refusing to understand something you deny anyway is even dumber than i can imagine
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's wilfully dumb. It's an issue of will, not an issue of capacity. Bright people can be wrong too. This is why dismissing creationists (or any denialist) as being merely stupid is a mistake. History is littered with error prone geniuses. Of course Forastero might be both actually stupid and wilfully stupid, that possibility also exists, but there's a difference between the three categories.

There's nothing wrong with being actually stupid, all that means is you lack a certain innate capacity. I'm a terrible soccer player for example, can't play it to save my life, I also can't draw and my handwriting is diabolical. I suppose I could correct those things to some extent with some effort, but I'm not going to be David Beckham or a calligrapher any time soon. I lack the capacity to be so in some measure and that is no crime.

However, if instead of writing I poured ink on a page and smeared it about in pretty ways and said to people "Look I done me some writing" I'd rightfully be derided as a moron. That's what Forastero and his ideological ilk are doing. Whether or not they can write is not in question, they probably can, the problem is they are trying very, very, very hard not to write at all. They are putting effort into making silly smears on bits of paper and wasting everyone's time with it so they can continue to claim that their Rorschach blots are somehow meaningful when they ain't.

Incidentally, this is also why Forastero and sundry babblers always trot out the "great minds of history who supposedly agree with X" (whatever X is). They are trying to prove that to think like they do does not render them "stupid". They are missing the point. It's a red herring the size of a whale shark. It's not that they are stupid that's the problem, it's that they are trying very, very hard to be stupid by ignoring the evidence. Which is bad whether or not you are clever or stupid by dint of capacity.

Louis
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 25 2011,08:06

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,06:07)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,05:44)
Forastero,
Please tell me 1 single thing that ID explains that is currently not explained.

If not, then 1 single thing that ID explains more plausibly then is current accepted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's your problem as well as a part of our problem with you: You haven't got a clue, especially about what is currently accepted.

Is it to much to ask that you familiarize yourself with the theory of evolution by reading some of the abundant literature that exists?

That's what books are for; that's why they are written. Maybe not by Einstein, but some quite clever people anyway, well above your level if I may say.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 25 2011,08:16

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 24 2011,23:57)
The sad thing about all the ad hominems is that they weren't even funny. What is funny but true is that according to the ancient philosophers "Ad hominem attacks were the ultimate sign the agony of defeat” and usually by those influenced by the spiritual logos

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." By Albert Einstein
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


EPIC fail

Ad hominem is when you insult a person as a refutation of their argument.  

Your arguments are being refuted AND you are being insulted.

Huge difference.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 25 2011,08:35

Forastero,

A little tip from the grown-ups.

Ad hominem is the logical fallacy of arguing that a proposition is false because of a characteristic of the person proposing it. For example, it would be an ad hominem for me to tell reader to disregard what you say because you have red hair or are left-handed.

Describing you or the assertions you inflict on us as stupid is not ad hominem. It is a mixture of verbal abuse, fair comment and entertaining derision. You will find that it tends to stop (or at least ease off a bit) if you present evidence and argument in support of your position.

But it's been a while since there was a half-way decent chew-toy for the scientists here, so carry on as you were.
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 25 2011,09:50

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 25 2011,15:47)
 
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 25 2011,08:35)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 25 2011,13:24)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you really think that anymore reading miles outside your peer level looking for loop holes like some tree house lawyer is going to fix your comprehension problem?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



baaahaha no but he can probably troll up some meat while he looks for the glory loop hole.  after all it's not so much of a comprehension problem as it is a mental retardation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He doesn't have to be retarded, he merely has to be ignorant and incompetent in the relevant fields of study.

Messers Dunning and Kruger strike again.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


he doesn't have to be....  it just works out that way i think

refusing to understand something you deny anyway is even dumber than i can imagine
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hmmm

in f's case as a cool ID dude sitting on the shit pile that is ID refusing counts as understanding.

We know he isn't Behe who is probably the only card carrying IDist who could grock any actual biology and even then there would be so much arm waving he could get a gig in Las Vagas as a magicians assistant.

Fuckface on the otherhand would have difficulty getting getting a start as a ventriloquist's dummy.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 25 2011,09:52



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw, chimps and humans actually differ by around 5% and chimps.  Mice and human share about 98 %.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's comparing numbers that came from measuring different aspects of the DNA.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No wonder y’all wont try  to explain to me  the origin of the up to 100 different Cambrian phyla.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My take on that is that the species of that time period diverged from each other before they had acquired specialized limb structures, and so wound up developing different limb structures.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So thats your excuse to avoid explaining your so called natural mutation selection?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Those are basic concepts in the subject matter. Anybody seriously arguing about the subject would have already studied the basics.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
but in my opinion, if two critters can interbreed and produce fertile offspring then they should be considered the same species no matter how separated they are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would change how the word is used; it would have no effect on the underlying subject matter.
Posted by: jeannot on Oct. 25 2011,11:20

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:04)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 24 2011,00:32)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:20)
Hmm..you guys sure are taking a long time to find a robust critter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the horse?

the blue whale?
EDIT: given the billion of species that existed I'm pretty sure you can find an ancestor that was more robust than a extant descendent... or weaker. Depends on which ancestor you pick.

What's your point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you want to add multi-toed beasts to horses ey?

Then here's a Hyracodontid (in the background to the right)
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature.....e_1.jpg >

P.S I had to delete your image and mine because for some strange reason I can no longer post or qote anything with images
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So is the blue whale a robust critter of not?
What about the horse?

Why is this relevant to the debate?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 25 2011,12:37

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 25 2011,11:20)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:04)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 24 2011,00:32)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:20)
Hmm..you guys sure are taking a long time to find a robust critter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the horse?

the blue whale?
EDIT: given the billion of species that existed I'm pretty sure you can find an ancestor that was more robust than a extant descendent... or weaker. Depends on which ancestor you pick.

What's your point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you want to add multi-toed beasts to horses ey?

Then here's a Hyracodontid (in the background to the right)
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature.....e_1.jpg >

P.S I had to delete your image and mine because for some strange reason I can no longer post or qote anything with images
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So is the blue whale a robust critter of not?
What about the horse?

Why is this relevant to the debate?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Honestly, I'm not even sure what the debate is anymore.

forastero is like a guy that I just put into moderation on my blog... so lacking science that it is impossible to actually hold a conversation with them.

What has happened to creationists?  AFDave was wrong about many things, in complete denial, and monumentally dunning-krueger, but he wasn't a complete moron.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Oct. 25 2011,14:19

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 24 2011,18:10)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 24 2011,14:03)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 24 2011,13:37)
Falando do quem, has AFDave been seen anywhere recently?

He discovered an[other] exciting business opportunity when Febble et al painted him into the corner of a zircon crystal at TalkOrigins a few months ago.

It would be such as shame to lose the Internet's premier resource for countering creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd been wondering, myself.  Deadman and I wax nostalgic about him once in a while.  Lousy pillow talk but still amusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd imagine it's an excellent contraceptive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not as good as my personality.
Posted by: rossum on Oct. 25 2011,15:39

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:10)
No wonder y’all wont try  to explain to me  the origin of the up to 100 different Cambrian phyla.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some advice.  You really need to check your information before posting here.  We have only identified 13 phyla that were present during the Cambrian, and four of then were also present in the Vendian, before the Cambrian started.

It is possible that a few other phyla were present during the Vendian or Cambrian, it is just that we do not have any fossil record of them -- think small and squishy marine invertebrates that don't fossilize well.

It is worth pointing out that all land plant phyla started after the Cambrian.  Not a lot of ID sites wittering on about the "Cambrian Explosion" tell you about that.  Yet another reason to check your sources carefully.

rossum
Posted by: J-Dog on Oct. 25 2011,20:48



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not as good as my personality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



POTW!!! 1111
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 26 2011,02:01

Quote (rossum @ Oct. 25 2011,16:39)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:10)
No wonder y’all wont try  to explain to me  the origin of the up to 100 different Cambrian phyla.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some advice.  You really need to check your information before posting here.  We have only identified 13 phyla that were present during the Cambrian, and four of then were also present in the Vendian, before the Cambrian started.

It is possible that a few other phyla were present during the Vendian or Cambrian, it is just that we do not have any fossil record of them -- think small and squishy marine invertebrates that don't fossilize well.

It is worth pointing out that all land plant phyla started after the Cambrian.  Not a lot of ID sites wittering on about the "Cambrian Explosion" tell you about that.  Yet another reason to check your sources carefully.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


c'mon, rossum. 13 rounded up to the nearest hundred is 100.
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 26 2011,06:29

Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 25 2011,22:19)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 24 2011,18:10)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 24 2011,14:03)
 
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 24 2011,13:37)
Falando do quem, has AFDave been seen anywhere recently?

He discovered an[other] exciting business opportunity when Febble et al painted him into the corner of a zircon crystal at TalkOrigins a few months ago.

It would be such as shame to lose the Internet's premier resource for countering creationism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd been wondering, myself.  Deadman and I wax nostalgic about him once in a while.  Lousy pillow talk but still amusing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd imagine it's an excellent contraceptive.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not as good as my personality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your personality, AFDave inspired pillow talk and contraceptives in the one thought...

You know if you could bottle that creationism would be cured forever.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 26 2011,20:28

Did we break it?

Hey forastero, there's something that WAS more robust in the past... creationists.  These modern guys have no stamina.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Oct. 26 2011,20:47

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,04:20)
     
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,06:07)
Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


<snip>
,,,and I will read these soon and right after I read another article that Jeannot provided for me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


,,,hmmm

If/when I start seeing links to YouTube quantum woo, the design inference will become compelling.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Oct. 26 2011,21:58

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 26 2011,20:28)
Did we break it?

Hey forastero, there's something that WAS more robust in the past... creationists.  These modern guys have no stamina.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What are the odds he/she actually learned how much they did not know, and went to learn some science?
Posted by: fnxtr on Oct. 26 2011,23:36

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 26 2011,19:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 26 2011,20:28)
Did we break it?

Hey forastero, there's something that WAS more robust in the past... creationists.  These modern guys have no stamina.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What are the odds he/she actually learned how much they did not know, and went to learn some science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As if. Went cherry-picking, more likely.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 27 2011,01:27

Forastero, in addition to all your explosions it seems there are some < implotions > you'll have to come to terms with too.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 27 2011,11:56

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 26 2011,19:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 26 2011,20:28)
Did we break it?

Hey forastero, there's something that WAS more robust in the past... creationists.  These modern guys have no stamina.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What are the odds he/she actually learned how much they did not know, and went to learn some science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Zero.

He wasn't here to learn.  He was here to preach.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Oct. 27 2011,12:03

naah he was looking for a date
Posted by: Kristine on Oct. 27 2011,14:07

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 27 2011,12:03)
naah he was looking for a date
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Big Bang"? ;)

I just stayed out of this. I remember when another creationist showed up and Lenny just lashed out with a, "Dude, do you have to recycle all the old canards, uuggghhh, how boooring!" and I thought, "Well, that's a little rude."

I don't think it's rude anymore! These people do not have Alzheimer's, so what is their excuse? I'm sick of playing the standard chess opening all the time with them.
Posted by: Louis on Oct. 27 2011,15:23

Creationist comes in and asks questions, is generally polite, refers to evidence, debates with intellectual honesty (even to the point of saying "I can't accept that but I'll go and read about it"), I will welcome him with open arms and call him brother.

Creationist comes in and waves his arrogant little wee-wee around like Forastero and pretends to knowledge he clearly doesn't have, debates in bad faith and is generally rude, I will mock him and treat him with the scorn he deserves or simply ignore him.

Simple!

Louis
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Oct. 27 2011,16:36

Quote (Kristine @ Oct. 27 2011,15:07)
I don't think it's rude anymore! These people do not have Alzheimer's, so what is their excuse? I'm sick of playing the standard chess opening all the time with them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you'd think they'd tire of being pwned at K4.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 27 2011,18:00

And there's no banning involved. He really seems to have decided that discussion is not what he wants.
Posted by: Timothy McDougald on Oct. 27 2011,18:13

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 27 2011,18:00)
And there's no banning involved. He really seems to have decided that discussion is not what he wants.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it didn't really seem like forastero was much interested in discussing anything.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Oct. 27 2011,19:54

Probably just fulfilling the course requirements for Dembski's Brainless Trolling 101 course at Southwestern Jesus and Barbeque.
Posted by: Kristine on Oct. 27 2011,20:19

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 27 2011,19:54)
Probably just fulfilling the course requirements for Dembski's Brainless Trolling 101 course at Southwestern Jesus and Barbeque.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


:)

:D
Happy Jaysustween, everybody!


Posted by: Louis on Oct. 27 2011,21:18

Now THAT is what I call a shimmy!

Hurrah!

Louis
Posted by: MichaelJ on Oct. 30 2011,00:08

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 28 2011,09:13)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 27 2011,18:00)
And there's no banning involved. He really seems to have decided that discussion is not what he wants.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it didn't really seem like forastero was much interested in discussing anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not necessarily watching Byers and IBIG here, I've noticed that when real science happens they disappear for awhile until the uncomfortable questions get pushed far enough down the line.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 01 2011,01:44

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,06:13)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,06:07)
Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sigh. Perhaps you should read this:

< http://www.amazon.com/Greates....&sr=1-4 >

So, here's what is currently accepted: The origin of species that we observe around us has no telic input whatsoever. Unguided evolution is the origin of biological diversity.

A specific example:  Yanoconodon allini shows a transition between modern mammals and their distant ancestors which illustrates a transitional structure in the long process of evolution of mammal ears.

< http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....-action >

Evolution explains the origin of mammalian ears via a series of such data points.

How does ID explain the origin of mammalian ears?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt if there are any blind watch makers and genes are not really selfish

And your second link is just more pseudoempiricism and circular reasoning. I mean, to resurrect so called ancestral genes, y’all are implementing modern evolutionism to infer so called primordial evolution in order to infer modern evolutionism. Plus, no small mutations are known to fine-tune anything, especially these hopeful monsters

In all honesty articles like these just sadden me because they only prove to me how desperately lost so many of you really are.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 01 2011,01:57

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 25 2011,11:20)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:04)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 24 2011,00:32)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:20)
Hmm..you guys sure are taking a long time to find a robust critter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


the horse?

the blue whale?
EDIT: given the billion of species that existed I'm pretty sure you can find an ancestor that was more robust than a extant descendent... or weaker. Depends on which ancestor you pick.

What's your point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you want to add multi-toed beasts to horses ey?

Then here's a Hyracodontid (in the background to the right)
< http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature.....e_1.jpg >

P.S I had to delete your image and mine because for some strange reason I can no longer post or qote anything with images
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So is the blue whale a robust critter of not?
What about the horse?

Why is this relevant to the debate?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Baleen whale fossils are extremely rare but giant fossil whales have been found, including one with a 4-meter skull from Chili and I believe an even larger one was recently found there. I think most blue whale skulls average 3.5 meters without the blubber.

< http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i....286.jpg > < http://news.discovery.com/animals....il.html >
Plus, sperm whales in the same Miocene vicinity are larger than modern representatives so ……
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 01 2011,02:04

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,06:13)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,06:07)
Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sigh. Perhaps you should read this:

< http://www.amazon.com/Greates....&sr=1-4 >

So, here's what is currently accepted: The origin of species that we observe around us has no telic input whatsoever. Unguided evolution is the origin of biological diversity.

A specific example:  Yanoconodon allini shows a transition between modern mammals and their distant ancestors which illustrates a transitional structure in the long process of evolution of mammal ears.

< http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....-action >

Evolution explains the origin of mammalian ears via a series of such data points.

How does ID explain the origin of mammalian ears?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Migrating jaws and ears is just more silly conjectures; and again, so called homologies in no way prove evolution or dismiss intelligent design. In fact, a loving creator not only wants to give all life a fair shake but also to live in ecological balance and harmony. Homologies also instill empathy with man.

Plus, this incessant referral to everything found during the so called age of reptiles as reptilian is just one more of the myriad ways that evolutionism retards science. The myriad mammal-like reptiles are actually mammals, many of which can still be found living today. Come to think of it, I bet most Cambrian critters can still be found living today.

Oh and while we’re on the subjects of giant mammalian sea critters, some dolphins were bigger and badder than even megalodon (giant great white)

P.S. sorry but please ignore the second half of my above response to you for that was actually meant for a different member
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 01 2011,02:08

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,11:57)
This study might also be of interest: < cristal structure of an ancient protein >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is just more pseudoempiricism and circular reasoning. I mean, to resurrect so called ancestral genes, y’all are just implementing modern evolutionism to infer so called primordial evolution in order to infer modern evolutionism. Plus, no small mutations are known to fine-tune anything, especially these hopeful monsters

In all honesty articles like these just sadden me because they only prove to me how desperately lost so many of you really are.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 01 2011,02:15

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 26 2011,20:28)
Did we break it?

Hey forastero, there's something that WAS more robust in the past... creationists.  These modern guys have no stamina.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...and we're still wondering why you're  avoiding my last big response to your last big response
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 01 2011,02:35

Quote (rossum @ Oct. 25 2011,15:39)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:10)
No wonder y’all wont try  to explain to me  the origin of the up to 100 different Cambrian phyla.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some advice.  You really need to check your information before posting here.  We have only identified 13 phyla that were present during the Cambrian, and four of then were also present in the Vendian, before the Cambrian started.

It is possible that a few other phyla were present during the Vendian or Cambrian, it is just that we do not have any fossil record of them -- think small and squishy marine invertebrates that don't fossilize well.

It is worth pointing out that all land plant phyla started after the Cambrian.  Not a lot of ID sites wittering on about the "Cambrian Explosion" tell you about that.  Yet another reason to check your sources carefully.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it   Lewin, R. (1988) Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291

And they weren’t “all” squishy invertebrates either. Heck, even fish have been found in the Cambrian

Shu, D.-G., Conway Morris, S., Zhang, X.-L., Hu, S.-X., Chen, L., Han, J., Zhu, M., Li, Y. and Chen, L.-Z., Lower Cambrian vertebrates from south China, Nature 402:42–46, 1999.

Janvier, P., Catching the first fish, Nature 402:21–22, 1999.

Shu, D.-G., Conway Morris, S., Han, J., Zhang, Z.-F., Yasui, K., Janvier, P., Chen, L., Zhang, X.-L., Liu, J.-N., Li, Y. and Liu, H.-Q., Head and backbone of the Early Cambrian vertebrate Haikouichthys, Nature 421:526–529, 2003.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 01 2011,03:00

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 25 2011,07:41)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Oct. 25 2011,13:35)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,07:07)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,05:44)
Forastero,
Please tell me 1 single thing that ID explains that is currently not explained.

If not, then 1 single thing that ID explains more plausibly then is current accepted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's with creationists' inordinate fondness for using "ya" instead of "you" (FL, JoeG, etc.)?  It's almost like it's meant to emphasize the slack-jawed stupidity of the ideas being advanced--as if the standard incompetence in spelling and grammar isn't enough of a clue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's:

a) sarcastic arrogance (they think their drivel is the equal of science, thus they themselves in their ignorance are the equal of someone who actually knows what they are talking about)

b) profoundly anti-intellectual (they discount actual knowledge, actual study, actual effort as being unworthy of them or at least worthless because it contradicts them, they thus eschew the trappings of intellectual life, for example by pretending to be "just plain folks").

It's the psychology that underpins this crap that fascinates me the most nowadays.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


History  shows us that many a golden age status quo were not only the most elitists in their propaganda but also usually the most preposterous.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 01 2011,04:21

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,02:35)
Quote (rossum @ Oct. 25 2011,15:39)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:10)
No wonder y’all wont try  to explain to me  the origin of the up to 100 different Cambrian phyla.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some advice.  You really need to check your information before posting here.  We have only identified 13 phyla that were present during the Cambrian, and four of then were also present in the Vendian, before the Cambrian started.

It is possible that a few other phyla were present during the Vendian or Cambrian, it is just that we do not have any fossil record of them -- think small and squishy marine invertebrates that don't fossilize well.

It is worth pointing out that all land plant phyla started after the Cambrian.  Not a lot of ID sites wittering on about the "Cambrian Explosion" tell you about that.  Yet another reason to check your sources carefully.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it   Lewin, R. (1988) Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291

And they weren’t “all” squishy invertebrates either. Heck, even fish have been found in the Cambrian

Shu, D.-G., Conway Morris, S., Zhang, X.-L., Hu, S.-X., Chen, L., Han, J., Zhu, M., Li, Y. and Chen, L.-Z., Lower Cambrian vertebrates from south China, Nature 402:42–46, 1999.

Janvier, P., Catching the first fish, Nature 402:21–22, 1999.

Shu, D.-G., Conway Morris, S., Han, J., Zhang, Z.-F., Yasui, K., Janvier, P., Chen, L., Zhang, X.-L., Liu, J.-N., Li, Y. and Liu, H.-Q., Head and backbone of the Early Cambrian vertebrate Haikouichthys, Nature 421:526–529, 2003.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How long did this "explosion" take again? Remind me.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 01 2011,04:26

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,09:00)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 25 2011,07:41)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Oct. 25 2011,13:35)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,07:07)
       
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 25 2011,05:44)
Forastero,
Please tell me 1 single thing that ID explains that is currently not explained.

If not, then 1 single thing that ID explains more plausibly then is current accepted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, as soon as one of ya explain to me whats currently accepted
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's with creationists' inordinate fondness for using "ya" instead of "you" (FL, JoeG, etc.)?  It's almost like it's meant to emphasize the slack-jawed stupidity of the ideas being advanced--as if the standard incompetence in spelling and grammar isn't enough of a clue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's:

a) sarcastic arrogance (they think their drivel is the equal of science, thus they themselves in their ignorance are the equal of someone who actually knows what they are talking about)

b) profoundly anti-intellectual (they discount actual knowledge, actual study, actual effort as being unworthy of them or at least worthless because it contradicts them, they thus eschew the trappings of intellectual life, for example by pretending to be "just plain folks").

It's the psychology that underpins this crap that fascinates me the most nowadays.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


History  shows us that many a golden age status quo were not only the most elitists in their propaganda but also usually the most preposterous.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


History also shows us that the place is generally littered with morons who gabbled nonsense. And dear old Dame History even goes so far as to show us that your "designer" is hiding in ever smaller cracks, the size of which is inversely proportional to the amount of nonsensical hand waving you dribblers engage in.

Reminder: To wear the mantle of Galileo you must not just be persecuted, you must also be correct. You're not correct, Forastero. So cut it out with the "elitist" drivel. There's a good mockable idiot.

Louis
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 01 2011,04:49



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In all honesty articles like these just sadden me because they only prove to me how desperately lost so many of you really are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find it quite remarkable, here we suddenly have this anonymous guy, superior to generations of scientists. We can only bow to his exquisite intellect and hope for for him to publish "The True Origins of Species" to end all doubt we might have about God of the gaps as the force behind evolution.
Posted by: rossum on Nov. 01 2011,06:58

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,02:35)
Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  For example, I disagree.  I think that, "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," was the original evolution of the first Metazoan, back well before the Cambrian.

Note that plant body forms are not mentioned.  All land plant phyla appeared after the Cambrian.  Why is that?

Note the word "virtually", not all but "virtually all".  Many animal phyla, but not all of them, and no land plant phyla at all appeared in the Cambrian.  Looking at the figures, nine animal phyla and no land plant phyla appeared in the Cambrian, of a total of 45 phyla.  Nine of 45 is 20% of metazoan phyla.  Important, but not overwhelmingly important.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Animal phyla.  Again, your sources are omitting plant phyla.  Ever wonder why your sources are leaving out inconvenient data?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And some estimate a lot less.  Where is the evidence to support this estimate?  After all, the people giving the estimates are scientists, and you know that scientists can't be trusted when it comes to evolution and biology.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it   Lewin, R. (1988) Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bwahahaha!  You don't read this stuff before you post it, do you.  1988 is not "recently", it is ancient history for biology.  We hadn't even sequenced the human genome in 1988.  That may be recent for theology, but it isn't recent for biology.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And they weren’t “all” squishy invertebrates either. Heck, even fish have been found in the Cambrian
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The non-fossilised ones were usually squishy.  I wasn't talking about the one that we have fossils for in that sentence.  You might also look at the dates for the Cambrian Explosion and the dates for actual early fish fossils.  We have probable chordates, such as Pikaia, from just after the Cambrian Explosion but no vertebrates.  The vertebrates appear later.

Your creationist/ID sources are supplying you with faulty information.  You really need to double check what they tell you before posting.  Be sure that we will check things if you don't.

rossum
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 01 2011,07:36

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 01 2011,05:49)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In all honesty articles like these just sadden me because they only prove to me how desperately lost so many of you really are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find it quite remarkable, here we suddenly have this anonymous guy, superior to generations of scientists. We can only bow to his exquisite intellect and hope for for him to publish "The True Origins of Species" to end all doubt we might have about God of the gaps as the force behind evolution.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


anonymous hell he can't wait to tell you who he is.

aint that right sugar dumplin?  self made man and all that?  self taught, autodidactor, is that about it?
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 01 2011,08:40

I just wanted to mention the following quotes,
I'm sure there are other examples:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In fact, a loving creator not only wants to give all life a fair shake but also to live in ecological balance and harmony. Homologies also instill empathy with man.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In all honesty articles like these just sadden me because they only prove to me how desperately lost so many of you really are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Bolding mine.

Because this is, of course, all about the "science". Right? {Wink}

Preach that gospel "science", Forastero. Amen, hallelujah and praise be unto Jesus God The Designer Who Could So Totally Be Space Aliens Wink Wink Ixnay On The Odgay.

Stick a fork in this bozo, he's done. Again. Next religious lunatic denying reality please.

Louis
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 01 2011,09:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plus, this incessant referral to everything found during the so called age of reptiles as reptilian is just one more of the myriad ways that evolutionism retards science. The myriad mammal-like reptiles are actually mammals, many of which can still be found living today. Come to think of it, I bet most Cambrian critters can still be found living today.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, wait, I think I get it now.  Byers, Bozo, and IBIG all got together and are now posting under this nym.

Ecc. i:9-11

eta: That's right. Opabinia is just a baby narwhal, or a very small aquatic elephant. Or something.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 01 2011,23:02

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 01 2011,06:58)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,02:35)
Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  For example, I disagree.  I think that, "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," was the original evolution of the first Metazoan, back well before the Cambrian.

Note that plant body forms are not mentioned.  All land plant phyla appeared after the Cambrian.  Why is that?

Note the word "virtually", not all but "virtually all".  Many animal phyla, but not all of them, and no land plant phyla at all appeared in the Cambrian.  Looking at the figures, nine animal phyla and no land plant phyla appeared in the Cambrian, of a total of 45 phyla.  Nine of 45 is 20% of metazoan phyla.  Important, but not overwhelmingly important.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Animal phyla.  Again, your sources are omitting plant phyla.  Ever wonder why your sources are leaving out inconvenient data?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And some estimate a lot less.  Where is the evidence to support this estimate?  After all, the people giving the estimates are scientists, and you know that scientists can't be trusted when it comes to evolution and biology.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it   Lewin, R. (1988) Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bwahahaha!  You don't read this stuff before you post it, do you.  1988 is not "recently", it is ancient history for biology.  We hadn't even sequenced the human genome in 1988.  That may be recent for theology, but it isn't recent for biology.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And they weren’t “all” squishy invertebrates either. Heck, even fish have been found in the Cambrian
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The non-fossilised ones were usually squishy.  I wasn't talking about the one that we have fossils for in that sentence.  You might also look at the dates for the Cambrian Explosion and the dates for actual early fish fossils.  We have probable chordates, such as Pikaia, from just after the Cambrian Explosion but no vertebrates.  The vertebrates appear later.

Your creationist/ID sources are supplying you with faulty information.  You really need to double check what they tell you before posting.  Be sure that we will check things if you don't.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


because the Cambrian simply represents a benthic environment
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 01 2011,23:24

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 01 2011,06:58)
A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 02 2011,02:41

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 24 2011,18:48)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:41)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:27)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:22)
 
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:19)
Okay, define robust.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ha ha thats funny

Mass, density, etc etc..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So it is the creationist meaning of robust that your are referring to and not the scientific meaning then? Because in paleontology and paleoanthropology robust is not a measure of size.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


thats so funny its sad

So not to look like the cop out that it is, why dont you provide the "anthropological" definition of robustness
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Okay so, had to watch my team lose game four of the world series and then go to work. < Here is your definition of robusticity. >

You might want to ask yourself why australopithicines come in robust and gracile forms even though they are approximately the same size and body mass.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes bone strength is one factor of robusticity but strength correlates with mass, density, nutrients, etc etc
Although I definitely agree that robusticity is very epigenetic, bone density/robusticity has still decreased steadily through time

Secondly,  the robustness in Australopithecines is dealing strictly with their chewing apparatuses. Plus, there was quite a bit of sexual dimorphism with males being much larger and more robust. Interestingly Australopithecines get get shorter stature but more robust chewing apparatus over time. For instance:

A. anamesis supposedly stood between 5 to 6 ft tall, had a very robust skull and chewing apparatus but more human like post cranial than those listed below

A. afarensis stood up to 5 feet tall and had gracile apparatus

A. Aficanus stood up 4.5 ft tall and had gracile chewing apparatus

A. robustus stood up to 4 ft tall and had robust chewing apparatus

Ar. ramidus was about 120 cm 4 foot tall and weighed about 50 kg (110 lbs). The skull and brain are small
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 02 2011,02:45

Oops I didnt want to include Ardipithecus ramidus at the bottom
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 02 2011,03:02

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,17:50)
Oh, and you wanted an example where the modern form is more robust that the primitive form

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......siensis >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First of all, this represents a very small sample size and there is a lot of disagreement on what kind of human this actually is. Heck, some scientists are actually calling it an Asian Australopithecine. I am of the opinion that its some sort of Negrito that still inhabit areas. It could also be an H. erectus under pressures of Island dwarfism

Anyway, this is a poor example and you havnt at all clarified your stance
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 02 2011,03:47

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,13:11)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)
Actually you originally did seem to deny it on several occasions but you said you were going to teach me about my original question--how mutations and natural selection create new life or new orders or new genus

but you never do
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I deny that the endocrine system can influence phenotype or select phenotype.  You have yet to provide any evidence that this is case.

I was not going to teach you about how mutations and natural selection create new life... because they weren't involved in life to begin with.

I would be happy to educate you on how mutations and natural selection can create new SPECIES and in at least one known case, a new genus.  However, the 'new orders' is another fundamental misunderstanding you have about evolution and biology.

Are you willing to learn?  If you are then, we will have to take some very baby steps, because it is obvious that you have quite a few misunderstandings.

But the question remains, are you willing to learn?  That means reading carefully, that means actually considering new information and being honest.  It also means honestly answering any questions that may come up for you.  To that end, I would like to know where you get your current information from, so that I might best prepare some material to show you the deficiencies in that material.  Are you willing to do this?

You see, I can talk until I'm blue in the face, but unless you are willing to learn, then there isn't any point.  I can only judge your behavior by what I have seen here on this thread, and honestly, so far it is not impressive.

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose or not realizing it, but you have been caught in numerous logical fallacies... indeed, almost a textbook argument of the kind creationists use.  Argument by analogy, argument by authority, goalpost-shifting, quote-mining, and that's not to mention the fundamental mistakes in biology, chemistry, and physics so far.  Which, BTW, we have attempted to correct, but you don't seem to be interested in learning.

Just continuing to insist that the Big Bang was an actual explosion of the nuclear or (possibly sub-nuclear) kind shows that you have not even read some of the basics from actual scientists.

Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


From Darwin to Dawkins, evolutionists have always tried to suppress the idea of non-random biological events because it suggested theism. In your own fervor to deny purposeful selection, you have willfully conformed to the dogma of materialistic randomness of super-race Mother Nature Selection   preached to you by the slave trade schools of Anthropology and racists eugenics.

A genotype’s Polyphenisms are the reaction norms that are selected across a range of environments by the very flexible and dynamic endocrine system but in accord to it’s cell’s epigenetic code.  This system selects, regulates, controls, activates, programs, reorginizes, transduces ,disrupts, turns on, turns off, binds to DNA receceptors, modifies nucleotide bases, splices, edits,  transcribes, aquires, learns, memorizes, Imprints, methylates, demethylates, canalises, deacylates, acetylates etc etc etc….

Oh and where did I say the Big Bang was nuclear anything?
I simply gave several examples of how scientists explain it as an explosion
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 02 2011,04:11

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 02 2011,04:58

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,05:24)
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 01 2011,06:58)
A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can one be hostile to something one doesn't believe in and to all intents and purposes does not exist outside of the imaginations of various stripes of theists/deists?

Your confusion, incoherence and projection are noted.

Louis
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 02 2011,04:59

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
ID--superior designer made order from disorder

Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly made some primordial soup spontaneously generate into a bacteria-like critter that accidentally turned in to all kinds of other creatures by some punctuated solar radiation

ID--An elaborately designed endocrine system that purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli

Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they happen to occur at just the right time and niche
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How long do I have to suffer the shadow boxing, how long will you leave us suspended waiting for the only thing that counts in the real world: Evidence?

A critical analysis of your words shows that you are way off target. From such a bad start, nothing of value may come. You are using a lot of words, from the Big Bang to endocrine systems, but i don't see any relevant evidence.

Evidence consistent with Darwin's theory of variation and natural selection as the force driving evolution of species, the crucial mechanism that has allowed life to adapt to the demands imposed by the huge changes the planet has been undergoing for four billion years - it all adds up to a consistent picture of life as it is.

There are so many aspects of the universe that may look miraculous but we have yet to see even the slightest sign of supernatural intervention.

Again, evidence, please.

I have relied on facts and evidence for the past 70 years of my life and am not going to give up on that because you think faith trumps evidence.
Posted by: jeannot on Nov. 02 2011,05:39

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,02:08)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,11:57)
This study might also be of interest: < cristal structure of an ancient protein >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is just more pseudoempiricism and circular reasoning. I mean, to resurrect so called ancestral genes, y’all are just implementing modern evolutionism to infer so called primordial evolution in order to infer modern evolutionism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, refining the theory. Who'd have thunk?
Posted by: rossum on Nov. 02 2011,07:42

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:02)
because the Cambrian simply represents a benthic environment
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And your evidence for land dwelling organisms in the Cambrian is ... ?

rossum
Posted by: rossum on Nov. 02 2011,07:52

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:24)
In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no hostility towards design.  I have designed things myself.  I have no hostility towards Jesus, though I think of Him as a Bodhisattva, which might be seen as hostile by some.  As you might have surmised from my avatar, I an Buddhist, and I can assure you that Buddhism has no problems with either evolution or atheism.  Both origins and gods are irrelevant to the goals of Buddhism.

I do have problems with unscientific explanations based on an unevidenced designer, whose proponents will not even put a date on when the designer/s worked.

ID is a political, not a scientific movement.  It has just enough 'scienciness' to make it look scientific to non-scientists and to make it politically plausible.  It does not have enough science to actually qualify as science.

If the designer did design the bacterial flagellum, then when did this event happen, and what evidence do you have to support that date?

rossum
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 02 2011,07:52

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:24)

In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey! < This > must be Rossum!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2011,08:11

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,04:11)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes yes, therefore ID.

Yawn.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 02 2011,10:15

this sombitch is damn near retarded

the cambrian represents a benthic environment

LOL

how would you know, tard?
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 02 2011,10:36

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:24)
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 01 2011,06:58)
A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry; I missed the part where you answered the question.  If you'd be so kind, maybe you could point that part out to me.  Again.  I know I'm being dense.  Thanks.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 02 2011,10:45

A lot of claims... no evidence.

Hint: The Daily Mail is NOT a peer-reviewed publication.

Since you have poo-pooed a few of the refutations of our position...

what evidence do you require.

BTW: You STILL haven't talked about your position and evidence for it.

Perhaps you should ask your question of me again.  Since I appear to have forgotten it since you have been gone for over a week.

define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.
[strike]Define robust in terms of early man.[/strike]
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man  (The Daily Mail is not peer-reviewed evidence and you have not cited evidence for other claims)
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 02 2011,13:13

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 02 2011,07:52)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:24)
In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have no hostility towards design.  I have designed things myself.  I have no hostility towards Jesus, though I think of Him as a Bodhisattva, which might be seen as hostile by some.  As you might have surmised from my avatar, I an Buddhist, and I can assure you that Buddhism has no problems with either evolution or atheism.  Both origins and gods are irrelevant to the goals of Buddhism.

I do have problems with unscientific explanations based on an unevidenced designer, whose proponents will not even put a date on when the designer/s worked.

ID is a political, not a scientific movement.  It has just enough 'scienciness' to make it look scientific to non-scientists and to make it politically plausible.  It does not have enough science to actually qualify as science.

If the designer did design the bacterial flagellum, then when did this event happen, and what evidence do you have to support that date?

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


According to Buddha, one shouldnt make haughty claims of whats the gods cant and cant do until one reaches a of very high plane of spiritual knowledge. Your passion for the teachings of materialists men over spiritual enlightenment prove that you havnt reached this plane

Yes spiritual because, Buddhism is about leaving the material and becoming one with the demonic goddess in tantric meditation, which leads to many a secret sadomasochisms and was indeed incorporated by the likes of Hitler

The Brahmajala Sutta seems to indicate creationism but maybe you can give us your take on the following
39. "There comes a time, bhikkhus, when after the lapse of a long period this world contracts (disintegrates). While the world is contracting, beings for the most part are reborn in the ?bhassara Brahma-world.[7] There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.
40. "But sooner or later, bhikkhus, after the lapse of a long period, there comes a time when this world begins to expand once again. While the world is expanding, an empty palace of Brahm? appears. Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the ?bhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahm?. There he dwells, mind made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And he continues thus for a long, long period of time.
41. "Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): 'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the ?bhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahm?, in companionship with him. There they dwell, mind-made, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, moving through the air, abiding in glory. And they continue thus for a long, long period of time.
42. "Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahm?, the Great Brahm?, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.'
"And the beings who re-arose there after him also think: 'This must be Brahm?, the Great Brahm?, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And we have been created by him. What is the reason? Because we see that he was here first, and we appeared here after him.'
43. "Herein, bhikkhus, the being who re-arose there first possesses longer life, greater beauty, and greater authority than the beings who re-arose there after him.
44. "Now, bhikkhus, this comes to pass, that a certain being, after passing away from that plane, takes rebirth in this world. Having come to this world, he goes forth from home to homelessness. When he has gone forth, by means of ardor, endeavor, application, diligence, and right reflection, he attains to such a degree of mental concentration that with his mind thus concentrated he recollects his immediately preceding life, but none previous to that. He speaks thus: 'We were created by him, by Brahm?, the Great Brahm?, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. He is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and he will remain the same just like eternity itself. But we, who have been created by him and have come to this world, are impermanent, unstable, short-lived, doomed to perish.'
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 02 2011,13:15

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 02 2011,07:42)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:02)
because the Cambrian simply represents a benthic environment
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And your evidence for land dwelling organisms in the Cambrian is ... ?

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which ones?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 02 2011,13:18

Oh and Buddha would never dismiss texts based on age as Rossum does
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 02 2011,13:29

Quote (Forasstero @ tarding upthread)
Yes spiritual because, Buddhism is about leaving the material and becoming one with the demonic goddess in tantric meditation, which leads to many a secret sadomasochisms and was indeed incorporated by the likes of Hitler
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: forastero on Nov. 02 2011,13:45

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 02 2011,04:58)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,05:24)
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 01 2011,06:58)
A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can one be hostile to something one doesn't believe in and to all intents and purposes does not exist outside of the imaginations of various stripes of theists/deists?

Your confusion, incoherence and projection are noted.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The persistent  nature of your beliefs, defensiveness,  and hostility indicates a negative derivative or cult of the Great Designer
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 02 2011,13:49

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 02 2011,10:36)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:24)
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 01 2011,06:58)
A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry; I missed the part where you answered the question.  If you'd be so kind, maybe you could point that part out to me.  Again.  I know I'm being dense.  Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Millions of miraculous machines scurrying about prove a Great Designer. The scriptures and the millions of miraculous conversions prove which religion is legit
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 02 2011,13:50

Ok we've been had. This guy isn't serious, he's trolling for kicks. This is a Poe, a hoax, a piss take.

Louis
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 02 2011,13:53

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,19:45)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 02 2011,04:58)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,05:24)
 
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 01 2011,06:58)
A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How can one be hostile to something one doesn't believe in and to all intents and purposes does not exist outside of the imaginations of various stripes of theists/deists?

Your confusion, incoherence and projection are noted.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The persistent  nature of your beliefs, defensiveness,  and hostility indicates a negative derivative or cult of the Great Designer
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What beliefs? What defensiveness? Mocking someone for posting semi-literate, ignorant bafflegab on the internet hardly constitutes defensiveness. It constitutes a lack of tolerance for wilful buffoons.

But, again, your desire to project your own psychology onto other is noted. Pity you're not very good at it.

Louis
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 02 2011,13:59

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 02 2011,10:45)
BTW: You STILL haven't talked about your position and evidence for it.

Perhaps you should ask your question of me again.  Since I appear to have forgotten it since you have been gone for over a week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes you are still avoiding my responses to you on page 8 and 9 and also for about the tenth time you have avoided my request for you to describe in your own words natural mutation selection and where it leads to different orders etc..
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 02 2011,14:09

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,14:44)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 If you are interested in transitional fossils, you might find my chapter by chapter review of "< Your Inner Fish >" enlightening.

You see, people like you really are intellectual cowards.  You are scared to look up things that may interfere with your belief system.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Inner Fish? Is that based on Earnst Haekels' fraud filled fetal fish propaganda used by the Nazis to promote abortion, eugenics and infanticide?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 02 2011,14:15

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 25 2011,07:18)
forastero,

You have shifted the goal post again.  "The endocrine system selects the phenotype" does not equal epigenetics.

Here, this is from the first scholarly paper using the search terms you have given us  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
. A unifying theme of disease epigenetics is defects in phenotypic plasticity--cells' ability to change their behaviour in response to internal or external environmental cues.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17522677
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Phenotypic plasticity, doesn't mean what you think it means.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Epepigenetics is a type of phenotypic plasticity and its extremely dynamic so...

Why do you limit epigenetics and phenotypic plasticity definition to diseases?

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about so...

Who are you trying to fool?
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 02 2011,14:19

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,13:49)
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 02 2011,10:36)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:24)
 
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 01 2011,06:58)
A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry; I missed the part where you answered the question.  If you'd be so kind, maybe you could point that part out to me.  Again.  I know I'm being dense.  Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Millions of miraculous machines scurrying about prove a Great Designer. The scriptures and the millions of miraculous conversions prove which religion is legit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yawn.  try better, harder, faster, more.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 02 2011,14:32

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,12:09)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,14:44)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 If you are interested in transitional fossils, you might find my chapter by chapter review of "< Your Inner Fish >" enlightening.

You see, people like you really are intellectual cowards.  You are scared to look up things that may interfere with your belief system.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Inner Fish? Is that based on Earnst Haekels' fraud filled fetal fish propaganda used by the Nazis to promote abortion, eugenics and infanticide?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it."
- Edith Sitwell
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2011,14:33

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,14:09)
Inner Fish? Is that based on Earnst Haekels' fraud filled fetal fish propaganda used by the Nazis to promote abortion, eugenics and infanticide?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ignorant ass.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why do we look the way we do? What does the human hand have in common with the wing of a fly? Are breasts, sweat glands, and scales connected in some way? To better understand the inner workings of our bodies and to trace the origins of many of today's most common diseases, we have to turn to unexpected sources: worms, flies, and even fish.

Neil Shubin, a leading paleontologist and professor of anatomy who discovered Tiktaalik—the "missing link" that made headlines around the world in April 2006—tells the story of evolution by tracing the organs of the human body back millions of years, long before the first creatures walked the earth. By examining fossils and DNA, Shubin shows us that our hands actually resemble fish fins, our head is organized like that of a long-extinct jawless fish, and major parts of our genome look and function like those of worms and bacteria.

Shubin makes us see ourselves and our world in a completely new light. Your Inner Fish is science writing at its finest—enlightening, accessible, and told with irresistible enthusiasm.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://www.amazon.com/Your-In....5424474 >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 02 2011,14:39

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 24 2011,07:30)
more about slime to proust, hitler therefore baby jesus, please
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


dear gods thank you for acknowledging this, fourass.


next, do you think it possible you might work in some "WHERE YOU THEY'RE" and perhaps something about the speed of light.  bonus points for vapor canopies or athiests are cannibals.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 02 2011,14:53

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,13:49)
Millions of miraculous machines scurrying about prove a Great Designer. The scriptures and the millions of miraculous conversions prove which religion is legit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Begging the question...
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 02 2011,15:03

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,14:09)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,14:44)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 If you are interested in transitional fossils, you might find my chapter by chapter review of "< Your Inner Fish >" enlightening.

You see, people like you really are intellectual cowards.  You are scared to look up things that may interfere with your belief system.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Inner Fish? Is that based on Earnst Haekels' fraud filled fetal fish propaganda used by the Nazis to promote abortion, eugenics and infanticide?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibit....delines >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



IDiot.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 02 2011,15:11

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 02 2011,15:03)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,14:09)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,14:44)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 If you are interested in transitional fossils, you might find my chapter by chapter review of "< Your Inner Fish >" enlightening.

You see, people like you really are intellectual cowards.  You are scared to look up things that may interfere with your belief system.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Inner Fish? Is that based on Earnst Haekels' fraud filled fetal fish propaganda used by the Nazis to promote abortion, eugenics and infanticide?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibit....delines >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



IDiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, can't say I'm surprised that forastero has bought 100% into the Darwin-->Hitler meme.

It must be nice to have others do your thinking for you.
Posted by: rossum on Nov. 02 2011,15:17

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,13:13)
According to Buddha, one shouldnt make haughty claims of whats the gods cant and cant do until one reaches a of very high plane of spiritual knowledge. Your passion for the teachings of materialists men over spiritual enlightenment prove that you havnt reached this plane
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And where did you find this gem in the Tripitaka?  Buddhism generally tends to ignore gods.  They aren't particularly relevant to following the path.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes spiritual because, Buddhism is about leaving the material and becoming one with the demonic goddess in tantric meditation, which leads to many a secret sadomasochisms and was indeed incorporated by the likes of Hitler
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bwahahaha!  You lose - Poe's Law.  Your knowledge of Buddhism in general, and of Tantric Buddhism in particular, is obviously insufficient.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Brahmajala Sutta seems to indicate creationism but maybe you can give us your take on the following...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Certainly.  A being dies from a very high plane and is the first to be reborn in a newly formed lower plane: "Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the ?bhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahm?."

Being on his own, since he was the first to be reborn in the empty palace in the lower plane, he wishes for companions: "Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): 'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the ?bhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahm?, in companionship with him."

Since he wished for companions, and they duly appeared, he suffers from the delusion that he caused them to appear, when in fact it was the exhaustion of their previous karma.  However, he continues with his delusion and claims great powers for himself, on the basis of his mistaken understanding: "Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahm?, the Great Brahm?, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.'"

The being claiming to be Brahm? is mistaken.  This is nothing to do with creationism, but about the mistaken claims of a powerful god to be, "the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be."  You, or your source, has misunderstood the meaning of this passage.  The Brahmajala sutta points out a number of errors found among non-Buddhists.  This passage is from the section about the error of believing in an eternal creator-god who made the world.  Contemporary Buddhists often use it to argue against followers of the Abrahamic religions.

As I said before, your knowledge of Buddhism is insufficient.  All you have done here is to shoot yourself in the foot.  The god claiming to be the creator is making a mistaken claim, based on his own error.

You would do well to restrict yourself to arguing about topics where you have some knowledge.  Buddhism is not one of them.

rossum
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 02 2011,15:18

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2011,13:11)
Well, can't say I'm surprised that forastero has bought 100% into the Darwin-->Hitler meme.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention the Buddha-->Hitler meme.
Posted by: rossum on Nov. 02 2011,15:19

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,13:15)
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 02 2011,07:42)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:02)
because the Cambrian simply represents a benthic environment
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And your evidence for land dwelling organisms in the Cambrian is ... ?

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which ones?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Any land dwelling organism from the Cambrian will do.  Show us your evidence please.

rossum
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 02 2011,20:12

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 02 2011,15:17)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,13:13)
According to Buddha, one shouldnt make haughty claims of whats the gods cant and cant do until one reaches a of very high plane of spiritual knowledge. Your passion for the teachings of materialists men over spiritual enlightenment prove that you havnt reached this plane
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And where did you find this gem in the Tripitaka?  Buddhism generally tends to ignore gods.  They aren't particularly relevant to following the path.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes spiritual because, Buddhism is about leaving the material and becoming one with the demonic goddess in tantric meditation, which leads to many a secret sadomasochisms and was indeed incorporated by the likes of Hitler
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bwahahaha!  You lose - Poe's Law.  Your knowledge of Buddhism in general, and of Tantric Buddhism in particular, is obviously insufficient.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Brahmajala Sutta seems to indicate creationism but maybe you can give us your take on the following...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Certainly.  A being dies from a very high plane and is the first to be reborn in a newly formed lower plane: "Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the ?bhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahm?."

Being on his own, since he was the first to be reborn in the empty palace in the lower plane, he wishes for companions: "Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): 'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the ?bhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahm?, in companionship with him."

Since he wished for companions, and they duly appeared, he suffers from the delusion that he caused them to appear, when in fact it was the exhaustion of their previous karma.  However, he continues with his delusion and claims great powers for himself, on the basis of his mistaken understanding: "Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahm?, the Great Brahm?, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.'"

The being claiming to be Brahm? is mistaken.  This is nothing to do with creationism, but about the mistaken claims of a powerful god to be, "the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be."  You, or your source, has misunderstood the meaning of this passage.  The Brahmajala sutta points out a number of errors found among non-Buddhists.  This passage is from the section about the error of believing in an eternal creator-god who made the world.  Contemporary Buddhists often use it to argue against followers of the Abrahamic religions.

As I said before, your knowledge of Buddhism is insufficient.  All you have done here is to shoot yourself in the foot.  The god claiming to be the creator is making a mistaken claim, based on his own error.

You would do well to restrict yourself to arguing about topics where you have some knowledge.  Buddhism is not one of them.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm so your saying the story represents one spirit being impersonating a creator and another spirit being dismissing his claims? Sounds like a demon is involved and like the Hinduism that Buddhism sprang from, Buddhist venerate and worship demons. This is why Buddhism is so violent in its essence with many war gods worshiped by violent Bodhisattva, Bushido, S?hei, and Kamikaze warriors. War gods with a long history human sacrifice and Kapala skull caps. Could be why the Buddhist nations have the highest rate and number of abortions and infanticide.  Of coarse in China, atheism exponentiates the practices. Pedophilia is also rampant among the Buddhist monks.The Buddhist also often follow a racist Hindu-like caste system.

Tantric rituals involve transforming one’s soul by invoking goddess possession
Virtually all Tibetan Buddhist meditators seek to become enlightened through the use of Tantric rituals to reach spiritual goals (or Sadhanas) incuding knowledge, giving thanks, salvation, transformation, entering Buddha-fields or abode of the deities, good karma, rebirth, nirvana, and ultimately one with a goddess. Utmost secrecy is the cornerstone of tantric rituals. Tantric rituals include consumption of meat and alcohol, breath control, playing musical instruments and most importantly deity yoga, which involves mantras (repetitious chanting of prayers and spells with rosarys and prayer wheels until one becomes divine Buddah in body speech and mind), mandala trance (sandpainting of the celestial mansion or residence of the deities), visualizations of the deity, sexual intercourse with the deity, worship of the deity. The principal tantric deities are Shadakshari (four-armed incarnation of the Dalai Lama), Vajrayogin? ('the Wrathful Lady' or 'the Fierce Black One') and Tara. Avalokite?vara and Chakrasamvara are the male counterparts of these goddesses. These duel-sexed goddesses (Dakines) represent fully enlightened Buddahs and/or yidams (tutors, protectors, and consorts to Buddahood) that the tantic meditator must ultimately become one with what is referred to as the completion stage or Mother tantra. Often regarded as one in the same, these goddesses are the supreme deities (ishtadivas) of the Tantric pantheon. “No male Buddha, approaches them in metaphysical or practical import” Tara is the Indo-European earth and fertility goddess with aliases throughout the world involving zodiac cosmology, temple mounds and ritual human sacrifice, frenzied pedophilia and mutilation . In fact, Tara, Ishtar, Astarte, Inanna, Ashtoreth, Aphrodite , Dea Syria, Astarte, Cybele, Aphrodite, Kore, Mari, Artemis, Arduinna, Diana, Damara, Arianhrod, Artio, are interrelated (different pagan cultures developing name variants as traditions changed and the ages passed). Her male counterparts also include Baal-Thor-Zeus.  Dakini Dakini

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....cms6yIA >
Other goddess like Chakrasamsara/Vajrayogin? 'the Wrathful Lady' are Just like the Hindu kali ChakraSamvara/Vajrayogin? with a vajra in her right hand and a kapala (skull cup) in her left hand which is filled with blood that she partakes of with her upturned mouth. Her head is adorned with a crown of five human skulls and she wears a necklace of fifty human skulls. She is depicted as standing in the center of a blazing fire of exalted wisdom. the curved drigug knife in her right hand shows her power to cut the continuum of the delusions and obstacles of her followers and of all living beings. Drinking the nectar of blood from the kapala in her left hand symbolizes her experience of the clear light of bliss.[15] the severed-headed form of Vajrayogin? is similar to the Indian goddess Chinnamasta who is recognized by both Hindus and Buddhists.[17]
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 02 2011,20:13

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2011,15:18)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2011,13:11)
Well, can't say I'm surprised that forastero has bought 100% into the Darwin-->Hitler meme.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention the Buddha-->Hitler meme.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He probably knew  I was right
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 02 2011,20:14

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 02 2011,15:19)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,13:15)
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 02 2011,07:42)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:02)
because the Cambrian simply represents a benthic environment
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And your evidence for land dwelling organisms in the Cambrian is ... ?

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which ones?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Any land dwelling organism from the Cambrian will do.  Show us your evidence please.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cant name any can you?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 02 2011,20:20

I mean you cant even name one Cambrian land animal
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 02 2011,20:26

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,21:12)
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 02 2011,15:17)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,13:13)
According to Buddha, one shouldnt make haughty claims of whats the gods cant and cant do until one reaches a of very high plane of spiritual knowledge. Your passion for the teachings of materialists men over spiritual enlightenment prove that you havnt reached this plane
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And where did you find this gem in the Tripitaka?  Buddhism generally tends to ignore gods.  They aren't particularly relevant to following the path.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes spiritual because, Buddhism is about leaving the material and becoming one with the demonic goddess in tantric meditation, which leads to many a secret sadomasochisms and was indeed incorporated by the likes of Hitler
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bwahahaha!  You lose - Poe's Law.  Your knowledge of Buddhism in general, and of Tantric Buddhism in particular, is obviously insufficient.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Brahmajala Sutta seems to indicate creationism but maybe you can give us your take on the following...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Certainly.  A being dies from a very high plane and is the first to be reborn in a newly formed lower plane: "Then a certain being, due to the exhaustion of his life-span or the exhaustion of his merit, passes away from the ?bhassara plane and re-arises in the empty palace of Brahm?."

Being on his own, since he was the first to be reborn in the empty palace in the lower plane, he wishes for companions: "Then, as a result of dwelling there all alone for so long a time, there arises in him dissatisfaction and agitation, (and he yearns): 'Oh, that other beings might come to this place!' Just at that moment, due to the exhaustion of their life-span or the exhaustion of their merit, certain other beings pass away from the ?bhassara plane and re-arise in the palace of Brahm?, in companionship with him."

Since he wished for companions, and they duly appeared, he suffers from the delusion that he caused them to appear, when in fact it was the exhaustion of their previous karma.  However, he continues with his delusion and claims great powers for himself, on the basis of his mistaken understanding: "Thereupon the being who re-arose there first thinks to himself: 'I am Brahm?, the Great Brahm?, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be. And these beings have been created by me. What is the reason? Because first I made the wish: "Oh, that other beings might come to this place!" And after I made this resolution, now these beings have come.'"

The being claiming to be Brahm? is mistaken.  This is nothing to do with creationism, but about the mistaken claims of a powerful god to be, "the Lord, the Maker and Creator, the Supreme Being, the Ordainer, the Almighty, the Father of all that are and are to be."  You, or your source, has misunderstood the meaning of this passage.  The Brahmajala sutta points out a number of errors found among non-Buddhists.  This passage is from the section about the error of believing in an eternal creator-god who made the world.  Contemporary Buddhists often use it to argue against followers of the Abrahamic religions.

As I said before, your knowledge of Buddhism is insufficient.  All you have done here is to shoot yourself in the foot.  The god claiming to be the creator is making a mistaken claim, based on his own error.

You would do well to restrict yourself to arguing about topics where you have some knowledge.  Buddhism is not one of them.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm so your saying the story represents one spirit being impersonating a creator and another spirit being dismissing his claims? Sounds like a demon is involved and like the Hinduism that Buddhism sprang from, Buddhist venerate and worship demons. This is why Buddhism is so violent in its essence with many war gods worshiped by violent Bodhisattva, Bushido, S?hei, and Kamikaze warriors. War gods with a long history human sacrifice and Kapala skull caps. Could be why the Buddhist nations have the highest rate and number of abortions and infanticide.  Of coarse in China, atheism exponentiates the practices. Pedophilia is also rampant among the Buddhist monks.The Buddhist also often follow a racist Hindu-like caste system.

Tantric rituals involve transforming one’s soul by invoking goddess possession
Virtually all Tibetan Buddhist meditators seek to become enlightened through the use of Tantric rituals to reach spiritual goals (or Sadhanas) incuding knowledge, giving thanks, salvation, transformation, entering Buddha-fields or abode of the deities, good karma, rebirth, nirvana, and ultimately one with a goddess. Utmost secrecy is the cornerstone of tantric rituals. Tantric rituals include consumption of meat and alcohol, breath control, playing musical instruments and most importantly deity yoga, which involves mantras (repetitious chanting of prayers and spells with rosarys and prayer wheels until one becomes divine Buddah in body speech and mind), mandala trance (sandpainting of the celestial mansion or residence of the deities), visualizations of the deity, sexual intercourse with the deity, worship of the deity. The principal tantric deities are Shadakshari (four-armed incarnation of the Dalai Lama), Vajrayogin? ('the Wrathful Lady' or 'the Fierce Black One') and Tara. Avalokite?vara and Chakrasamvara are the male counterparts of these goddesses. These duel-sexed goddesses (Dakines) represent fully enlightened Buddahs and/or yidams (tutors, protectors, and consorts to Buddahood) that the tantic meditator must ultimately become one with what is referred to as the completion stage or Mother tantra. Often regarded as one in the same, these goddesses are the supreme deities (ishtadivas) of the Tantric pantheon. “No male Buddha, approaches them in metaphysical or practical import” Tara is the Indo-European earth and fertility goddess with aliases throughout the world involving zodiac cosmology, temple mounds and ritual human sacrifice, frenzied pedophilia and mutilation . In fact, Tara, Ishtar, Astarte, Inanna, Ashtoreth, Aphrodite , Dea Syria, Astarte, Cybele, Aphrodite, Kore, Mari, Artemis, Arduinna, Diana, Damara, Arianhrod, Artio, are interrelated (different pagan cultures developing name variants as traditions changed and the ages passed). Her male counterparts also include Baal-Thor-Zeus.  Dakini Dakini

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....cms6yIA >
Other goddess like Chakrasamsara/Vajrayogin? 'the Wrathful Lady' are Just like the Hindu kali ChakraSamvara/Vajrayogin? with a vajra in her right hand and a kapala (skull cup) in her left hand which is filled with blood that she partakes of with her upturned mouth. Her head is adorned with a crown of five human skulls and she wears a necklace of fifty human skulls. She is depicted as standing in the center of a blazing fire of exalted wisdom. the curved drigug knife in her right hand shows her power to cut the continuum of the delusions and obstacles of her followers and of all living beings. Drinking the nectar of blood from the kapala in her left hand symbolizes her experience of the clear light of bliss.[15] the severed-headed form of Vajrayogin? is similar to the Indian goddess Chinnamasta who is recognized by both Hindus and Buddhists.[17]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Seversky on Nov. 02 2011,20:34

Sure I can.  There was a cute little saber-toothed calico kitteh called Muffin.  Lived 521,324,951- 521,324,939 BCE.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 02 2011,20:43

Holy shit! What an absolute dribbler! This gets funnier!

Forastero, does dancing lead to fornication?

Louis
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 02 2011,20:49

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 02 2011,18:43)
Holy shit! What an absolute dribbler! This gets funnier!

Forastero, does dancing lead to fornication?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Louis, it's vice versa.

Mennonites never procreate in the standing position... it could lead to dancing.
Posted by: Kristine on Nov. 02 2011,20:50

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,20:20)
I mean you cant even name one Cambrian land animal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you talking about Protichnite or Climactichnite fossils?

ETA - I found some confetti. Does that mean I can name the kind of dance at the New Year's Party?


Posted by: Louis on Nov. 02 2011,21:05

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 03 2011,01:49)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 02 2011,18:43)
Holy shit! What an absolute dribbler! This gets funnier!

Forastero, does dancing lead to fornication?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, Louis, it's vice versa.

Mennonites never procreate in the standing position... it could lead to dancing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks. I always get that mixed up.

Mind you, my foxtrot has come on no end.


Louis
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 02 2011,21:27



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, I'm willing to teach you, but you have not indicated that you are willing to learn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somebody willing to learn would be reading first, before writing about it.

Henry
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,00:37

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 02 2011,20:50)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,20:20)
I mean you cant even name one Cambrian land animal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you talking about Protichnite or Climactichnite fossils?

ETA - I found some confetti. Does that mean I can name the kind of dance at the New Year's Party?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting fossil tracks and supposedly laid down in tidal flat sandstone.  There are similar sandstone beds and critter tracks at the bottom of the sea today but then the Climactichnite tracks could very well be of those various benthic worms that come to shore just to breed as does modern Odontosyllis phosphorea. The Protichnite tracks are being labeled as those of a Euthycarcinoid, which to me looks like a big benthic sand flea
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,00:49

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 01 2011,04:21)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,02:35)
Quote (rossum @ Oct. 25 2011,15:39)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 25 2011,01:10)
No wonder y’all wont try  to explain to me  the origin of the up to 100 different Cambrian phyla.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some advice.  You really need to check your information before posting here.  We have only identified 13 phyla that were present during the Cambrian, and four of then were also present in the Vendian, before the Cambrian started.

It is possible that a few other phyla were present during the Vendian or Cambrian, it is just that we do not have any fossil record of them -- think small and squishy marine invertebrates that don't fossilize well.

It is worth pointing out that all land plant phyla started after the Cambrian.  Not a lot of ID sites wittering on about the "Cambrian Explosion" tell you about that.  Yet another reason to check your sources carefully.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Described recently as "the most important evolutionary event during the entire history of the Metazoa," the Cambrian explosion established virtually all the major animal body forms -- Bauplane or phyla -- that would exist thereafter, including many that were 'weeded out' and became extinct. Compared with the 30 or so extant phyla, some people estimate that the Cambrian explosion may have generated as many as 100. The evolutionary innovation of the Precambrian/Cambrian boundary had clearly been extremely broad: "unprecedented and unsurpassed," as James Valentine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, recently put it   Lewin, R. (1988) Science, vol. 241, 15 July, p. 291

And they weren’t “all” squishy invertebrates either. Heck, even fish have been found in the Cambrian

Shu, D.-G., Conway Morris, S., Zhang, X.-L., Hu, S.-X., Chen, L., Han, J., Zhu, M., Li, Y. and Chen, L.-Z., Lower Cambrian vertebrates from south China, Nature 402:42–46, 1999.

Janvier, P., Catching the first fish, Nature 402:21–22, 1999.

Shu, D.-G., Conway Morris, S., Han, J., Zhang, Z.-F., Yasui, K., Janvier, P., Chen, L., Zhang, X.-L., Liu, J.-N., Li, Y. and Liu, H.-Q., Head and backbone of the Early Cambrian vertebrate Haikouichthys, Nature 421:526–529, 2003.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How long did this "explosion" take again? Remind me.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wont rightly know  fur sure until we reach the promised land but obviously fairly quick since so many are found in the same rock.

Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" . This is why top evolution gurus Gould and Eldridge came up with their theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain the utter lack of intermediates in the fossil record .

Scientists usually label fossil layers according to geologic eras based on index fossils but they should be labeling them as eco zones. For instance the Cambrian is a seafloor zone that always contains seafloor critters.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 03 2011,01:35

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where and when did he say this?
Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 03 2011,01:59

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,07:35)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where and when did he say this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I Googled the phrase and I'm shocked, shocked I tell you....

< Harun Yahya >


Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,03:09

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where and when did he say this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 03 2011,04:45

All right, all that remains is for you to explain how it really was, what really happened. That's all I want to know.

BTW, have you ever read  Origins?
Posted by: rossum on Nov. 03 2011,06:08

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,20:12)
Hmm so your saying the story represents one spirit being impersonating a creator and another spirit being dismissing his claims?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.  The Abrahamic god, worshiped by Jews, Christians and Moslems, is mistaken and his claims are in error.  He claims to be the Immortal Omnipotent Creator, but his claims are wrong.   He is long lived, but not immortal.  He is powerful, but not omnipotent.  He didn't create the world, but is deluded in thinking that he did.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tantric rituals involve ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are two possibilities here.  First, you have been initiated into one of the Tantric lineages, and in the process sworn yourself not to reveal its secrets to the uninitiated.  In this case you are an oath breaker and not to be trusted.  Second, that you have not been initiated and that you are talking about things of which you have no knowledge.  Again, what you say is not to be trusted.  I consider that the second possibility is more likely.

Tantras are secret.  Even when they are written down, they are written in coded language so that the uninitiated cannot understand them.  Knowing that the translation of "a red herring" is "a pink fish" does not help you get to the real meaning of the text.  The words of a written Tantra are deliberately designed to be misleading to the uninitiated.  You cannot learn Tantra from a book; you have to be initiated.

rossum
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 03 2011,06:16

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,00:49)
Wont rightly know  fur sure until we reach the promised land but obviously fairly quick since so many are found in the same rock.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, given your knowledge of how quickly such rocks form can you put some boundaries on "fairly quick"?

Days? Years? Thousands of years?

What?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 03 2011,08:04

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,03:09)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where and when did he say this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Come now, you don't really expect us to think you read something that requires a trip to the library?

The odds are that you grabbed both the hearsay and the reference from < this site >.

ETA: Forgot to mention that you couldn't even get that much right. Here's what the page said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

[...] Commenting on the puzzling status of the Ediacaran (Vendian) fossils, the Russian paleontologist Mikhail Fedonkin writes:

We are now in the situation Charles Darwin found himself in about 150 years ago. He was puzzled by the absence of the ancestors of the Cambrian invertebrates, considering this fact as a strong argument against his theory of gradualistic evolution of species. We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian fauna as well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state."5

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mistaking something explicitly attributed to Fedonkin as something Darwin wrote seems about your speed.


Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 03 2011,09:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...My library is all packed up at the moment...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2011,09:28

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,13:59)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 02 2011,10:45)
BTW: You STILL haven't talked about your position and evidence for it.

Perhaps you should ask your question of me again.  Since I appear to have forgotten it since you have been gone for over a week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes you are still avoiding my responses to you on page 8 and 9 and also for about the tenth time you have avoided my request for you to describe in your own words natural mutation selection and where it leads to different orders etc..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh.  that?

OK, so if I answer it AGAIN, then you will answer all of my questions?  

Excellent, I'll hold you to that.

First of all, you have a fundamental misunderstanding (color me surprised).  Orders are not a level at which mutation and selection play a part.  Orders are large groupings of taxonomically similar species and genuses.

Consider the following:
Kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species

This can easily be remembered by the phrase
King
Phillip
came
over
for
good
sex
(well, that's what I heard!)

Now, where are populations of organisms in this list?  The species level.  Where are individuals on this list?  The species level.  

All the action, as it where, happens at the species and (very, very rarely) the genus level (i.e. I only know of one speciation event that was significant enough to result in a change of genus*)

Now, why will mutation and selection NOT result in a change of family or order?

Because the family and order groupings are based on very specific anatomical features that, because of the nature of evolution, will not change.

for example, the order Carnivora is based on organisms that have the following characters:
carnassial teeth
no fewer than 4 toes on each foot
well developed canine teeth
6 incisors, 2 canines
many have 'dew claws' or vestigial first digits

And yet, organisms in as wide a range as polar bears to palm civets are all in this category.  The requirements for fitting into this order are listed.

It will be nearly impossible for a population of non-carnivores to evolve into carnivores.

What you are asking is that a species shed all the characteristics that make it a part of whatever order it currently is (if you use Artiodactyl as an example, then the population would have to gain two toes, change the entire morphology of it's foot, change from herbivore to carnivore (with the unique digestive system of artiodactyles disappearing and being replaced by a carnivore system (i.e. three chambered stomach going away, shortening intestines, biochemistry devoted to plant material converting to meat, etc.))  etc. etc. etc.

Do you begin to see the picture?

No one, not a single real scientist on the planet would suggest that is even possible, much less a requirement that evolution be able to accomplish.

Basically, you are asking how evolution can turn a duck into a crocodile and the answer is, it can't.  If you believe that this falsifies evolution, then you don't even know what evolution is, much less be capable of developing coherent arguments against it.



* interestingly, this paper (which I have asked if you wanted earlier) shows that a mutation in a plant species did result in a change of genus.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2011,09:32

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,04:11)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you are saying that bacteria have an endocrine system.

That's very interesting.  How many glands do bacteria have?  Where are they?  I didn't notice huge masses of tissues producing hormones the last time I looked at a bacteria.

Again, you claim is that the "Endocrine system selects the phenotype".

You entire evidence is... it could be?  Really.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2011,09:35

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,14:09)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,14:44)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 If you are interested in transitional fossils, you might find my chapter by chapter review of "< Your Inner Fish >" enlightening.

You see, people like you really are intellectual cowards.  You are scared to look up things that may interfere with your belief system.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Inner Fish? Is that based on Earnst Haekels' fraud filled fetal fish propaganda used by the Nazis to promote abortion, eugenics and infanticide?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See... I told you.  

You are too chicken to even read something that may conflict with your beliefs.  I pointed you to the articles in questions.

Even a cursory search on the internet would tell you what Your Inner Fish is about.  Or you could read my chapter-by-chapter summary and actually learn something... or not.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2011,09:40

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,14:15)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 25 2011,07:18)
forastero,

You have shifted the goal post again.  "The endocrine system selects the phenotype" does not equal epigenetics.

Here, this is from the first scholarly paper using the search terms you have given us  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
. A unifying theme of disease epigenetics is defects in phenotypic plasticity--cells' ability to change their behaviour in response to internal or external environmental cues.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17522677
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Phenotypic plasticity, doesn't mean what you think it means.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Epepigenetics is a type of phenotypic plasticity and its extremely dynamic so...

Why do you limit epigenetics and phenotypic plasticity definition to diseases?

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about so...

Who are you trying to fool?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I limit in the way I describe because that is ONLY POSSIBLE WAY in which epigenetics results in plasticity.

I am limiting it because that's what it is.

You are trying to change your original claim AND the definition of an well defined concept to suit your claims.  As usual, you obviously have no evidence, or idea what you are talking about.

Every single poster here is asking for evidence for your claims.  A real scientist would be laying down facts, figures, and data as fast as he could type it in.  References, supporting documents, etc. too.

You are engaged in semantics, obfuscation, and goal-post shifting to try and gain some measure of credibility.  It's too late.

BTW: Here's the list of questions you need to answer.  You'll find my answer to your question, in detail above.
(Please use your own words, so we know that you understand the concepts involved.)  


define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.
[strike]Define robust in terms of early man.[/strike]
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man  (The Daily Mail is not peer-reviewed evidence and you have not cited evidence for other claims)
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 03 2011,11:06

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 03 2011,06:08)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,20:12)
Hmm so your saying the story represents one spirit being impersonating a creator and another spirit being dismissing his claims?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.  The Abrahamic god, worshiped by Jews, Christians and Moslems, is mistaken and his claims are in error.  He claims to be the Immortal Omnipotent Creator, but his claims are wrong.   He is long lived, but not immortal.  He is powerful, but not omnipotent.  He didn't create the world, but is deluded in thinking that he did.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tantric rituals involve ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are two possibilities here.  First, you have been initiated into one of the Tantric lineages, and in the process sworn yourself not to reveal its secrets to the uninitiated.  In this case you are an oath breaker and not to be trusted.  Second, that you have not been initiated and that you are talking about things of which you have no knowledge.  Again, what you say is not to be trusted.  I consider that the second possibility is more likely.

Tantras are secret.  Even when they are written down, they are written in coded language so that the uninitiated cannot understand them.  Knowing that the translation of "a red herring" is "a pink fish" does not help you get to the real meaning of the text.  The words of a written Tantra are deliberately designed to be misleading to the uninitiated.  You cannot learn Tantra from a book; you have to be initiated.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


pwned!  Love it.
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 03 2011,11:12

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,13:49)
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 02 2011,10:36)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 01 2011,23:24)
 
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 01 2011,06:58)
A few points.  Was the description correct or incorrect?  A Muslim might describe Christianity as a false religion, is that description correct?  What evidence can you provide that this description is a correct one?  

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In the recess of your subconscious, youd likely see that your hostility toward design is simply a hostility toward God as indicated by its transference toward Christ. Iow, many members have no problem with Mohammad or Buddhist garb even though those religions would probably be more intolerant of yourselves
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry; I missed the part where you answered the question.  If you'd be so kind, maybe you could point that part out to me.  Again.  I know I'm being dense.  Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Millions of miraculous machines scurrying about prove a Great Designer. The scriptures and the millions of miraculous conversions prove which religion is legit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry I can't seem to stay on track--all these atheists and bhuddists and evildoers and all--so,

forastero, will you please enlighten me (as you seem the only one who actually answers questions) as to the answers to these questions?

I seem to have missed them.  Again?
Posted by: Kristine on Nov. 03 2011,11:26

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2011,08:04)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,03:09)
     
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where and when did he say this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Come now, you don't really expect us to think you read something that requires a trip to the library?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, do not pull that crap with me, either. You're talking to a reference librarian, bub.

ETA - Meant for forastero, not Wesley!


Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 03 2011,11:39

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,01:09)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where and when did he say this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, forastero.  So Darwin talked about the biota (first known use of this word: 1901) of the Vendian (1952), in a book published in 1993.  

When did Darwin die?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 03 2011,11:47

HE'S NOT DEAD, HE'S POSTING FROM THE COMPUTER UPSTAIRS...INSIDE YOUR HOUSE
Posted by: carlsonjok on Nov. 03 2011,11:54

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 03 2011,11:47)
HE'S NOT DEAD, HE'S POSTING FROM THE COMPUTER UPSTAIRS...INSIDE YOUR HOUSE
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,12:39

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 03 2011,04:45)
All right, all that remains is for you to explain how it really was, what really happened. That's all I want to know.

BTW, have you ever read  Origins?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean origins of Darwin's so called "Favored Races" that compared black slaves to apes and justified their exploitation with his evolutionary replacement theory ?

I already said in Occam terms that the Cambrian represents a benthic ecosystem that appeared suddenly via creation by God as did our earth and our intricate solar system. A planet and solar system that all run together like a finely tuned machine in order to allow that life to exist hear on earth.

When you Buddhist and pseudist gonna explain why you dance to the tune of spontaneous generation from primordial soup that accidentally exploded into a super huge zoo?   Oh I remember. There was this thing called abiogenesis where spontaneous but accidental aggregation of lipids and proteins formed primitive spaghetti monsters from the fountain of soup. Then occasional heights of solar activity came down from the heavens to cause Saltation or punctuated equilibrium that miraculously lead to greater rates of mutation which in turn lead to sudden explosions of diversity.  Unfortunately for you, top biologists astrobiologists destroyed your theory.

Louis Pasteur, a devout Christian creationist and skeptic of Darwinism would finally disprove the fallacy called Spontaneous Generation in 1859. Pasteur referred his findings as The Law of Biogenesis, which is now the fundamental law of biology. However, Darwin's The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life lead to a revival of the spontaneous biogenesis or generation theory. From this arose the modern evolutionary movement, which is now thought to have occurred in six phases: (1) Cosmic Evolution (the origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing); (2) Chemical Evolution (the development of the higher elements from hydrogen); (3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets); (4) Organic Evolution ( Spontaneous origin of organic life from a rock) (5) Macro Evolution (Mutation theory) and (6) Micro evolution. Pasteur would endure years of opposition, ridicule and outright hatred from evolutionary pseudo-scientists. But why would such a contradictory position be entertained? Because, as Dr. George Wald of Harvard, indicated, the other alternative, special creation, simply is not acceptable.

Many years later Chandra Wickramasinghe and fred Hoyle who calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup would grant little chance to evolutionary processes. He claimed: The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously. Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olson, have detailed why your biogenesis theories are ridiculous
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,12:57

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 03 2011,06:16)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,00:49)
Wont rightly know  fur sure until we reach the promised land but obviously fairly quick since so many are found in the same rock.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, given your knowledge of how quickly such rocks form can you put some boundaries on "fairly quick"?

Days? Years? Thousands of years?

What?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fossilization is a fairly rare event because it needs just the right and often miraculous processes to occur, Thus, for you to suggest that these Cambrian fossils just happened to fossilize over and over again over millions of years in the same select vicinities is just boulderdash

Oh and rocks can occur in seconds
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,12:59

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2011,08:04)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,03:09)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where and when did he say this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Come now, you don't really expect us to think you read something that requires a trip to the library?

The odds are that you grabbed both the hearsay and the reference from < this site >.

ETA: Forgot to mention that you couldn't even get that much right. Here's what the page said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

[...] Commenting on the puzzling status of the Ediacaran (Vendian) fossils, the Russian paleontologist Mikhail Fedonkin writes:

We are now in the situation Charles Darwin found himself in about 150 years ago. He was puzzled by the absence of the ancestors of the Cambrian invertebrates, considering this fact as a strong argument against his theory of gradualistic evolution of species. We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian fauna as well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state."5

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mistaking something explicitly attributed to Fedonkin as something Darwin wrote seems about your speed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I actually own the book and will dig it out just for you
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 03 2011,13:01

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,13:39)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 03 2011,04:45)
All right, all that remains is for you to explain how it really was, what really happened. That's all I want to know.

BTW, have you ever read  Origins?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean origins of Darwin's so called "Favored Races" that compared black slaves to apes and justified their exploitation with his evolutionary replacement theory ?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, no.  by the way, posting while drunk is bad form if you are just going to durp on and on about shit you obviously don't understand.

 just saying



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I already said in Occam terms that the Cambrian represents a benthic ecosystem that appeared suddenly via creation by God as did our earth and our intricate solar system. A planet and solar system that all run together like a finely tuned machine in order to allow that life to exist hear on earth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



so?  i think someone else already said you are a tedious and unctuous bore.  why should anyone give a fuck what you say?  that's all you have done, innit?  "say"?

but, let me stop you "hear".  according to what you just wrote above, you are saying that not only the "cambrian" but also "our earth" and our "intricate solar system" are benthic ecosystems that appeared suddenly via creation by God?  that is the first interesting thing you have said!  do go on, and by that i mean exactly that.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 03 2011,13:03

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,13:57)
Oh and rocks can occur in seconds
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


MINE
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,13:16

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,09:32)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,04:11)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you are saying that bacteria have an endocrine system.

That's very interesting.  How many glands do bacteria have?  Where are they?  I didn't notice huge masses of tissues producing hormones the last time I looked at a bacteria.

Again, you claim is that the "Endocrine system selects the phenotype".

You entire evidence is... it could be?  Really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm saying bacteria  could very well have a homologous system

A bacterial hormone (the SCB1) directly controls the expression of a pathway-specific regulatory gene in the cryptic type I polyketide biosynthetic gene cluster of Streptomyces coelicolor.
< http://www.mendeley.com/researc....licolor >

Phenotypic plasticity is the process by which all groups of plants and animals modify their development, physiology, growth, and behavior in response to environmental stimuli (Crespi et al 2004). Hormones play a key role in switching on phenotypic expressions. One of my favorite examples is where hormones diffuse into cells where they can bind to hormone receptors at specific DNA targets. This receptor activation within the nucleus results in the transcription of mRNA and the synthesis of new proteins (West-Eberhard 2005). In other words, God has given us a miraculous survival tool. You will hear the media and academia shout mutations but bacteria only constantly adapt and do not change into anything other than bacteria. Same goes with any other critter
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 03 2011,13:26

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,10:39)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 03 2011,04:45)
All right, all that remains is for you to explain how it really was, what really happened. That's all I want to know.

BTW, have you ever read  Origins?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean origins of Darwin's so called "Favored Races" that compared black slaves to apes and justified their exploitation with his evolutionary replacement theory ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Answer of "No, I haven't" duly noted.
Posted by: Kristine on Nov. 03 2011,13:48

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,13:26)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,10:39)
     
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 03 2011,04:45)
All right, all that remains is for you to explain how it really was, what really happened. That's all I want to know.

BTW, have you ever read  Origins?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean origins of Darwin's so called "Favored Races" that compared black slaves to apes and justified their exploitation with his evolutionary replacement theory ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Answer of "No, I haven't" duly noted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite. But if forastero wants to read about Darwin's opinions on slavery, start < here >.

Though I am not counting on it, somebody may actually learn something.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2011,14:12

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,13:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,09:32)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,04:11)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you are saying that bacteria have an endocrine system.

That's very interesting.  How many glands do bacteria have?  Where are they?  I didn't notice huge masses of tissues producing hormones the last time I looked at a bacteria.

Again, you claim is that the "Endocrine system selects the phenotype".

You entire evidence is... it could be?  Really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm saying bacteria  could very well have a homologous system

A bacterial hormone (the SCB1) directly controls the expression of a pathway-specific regulatory gene in the cryptic type I polyketide biosynthetic gene cluster of Streptomyces coelicolor.
[URL=http://www.mendeley.com/research/bacterial-hormone-scb1-directly-controls-expression-pathwayspecific-regulatory-gene-crypti

c-type-i-polyketide-biosynthetic-gene-cluster-streptomyces-coelicolor/]http://www.mendeley.com/researc....licolor[/URL]

Phenotypic plasticity is the process by which all groups of plants and animals modify their development, physiology, growth, and behavior in response to environmental stimuli (Crespi et al 2004). Hormones play a key role in switching on phenotypic expressions. One of my favorite examples is where hormones diffuse into cells where they can bind to hormone receptors at specific DNA targets. This receptor activation within the nucleus results in the transcription of mRNA and the synthesis of new proteins (West-Eberhard 2005). In other words, God has given us a miraculous survival tool. You will hear the media and academia shout mutations but bacteria only constantly adapt and do not change into anything other than bacteria. Same goes with any other critter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said...

"Endocrine system determines phenotype"

Do you still support that claim or not?  If you do, then evidence has been asked for several times and now, once more.

Further, I note that you have not acted in good faith, I answered your question, quite thoroughly I might add (and in my own words), you have not yet done so.

Finally, I would like to point out that the BURIAL EVENT probably did occur in seconds.  It's called a landslide.  I'm sure you can find a video of one on youtube.

However, the landslide (even if underwater on the continental shelf) burial event is NOT the Cambrian Explosion.  That is the surge in diversity that occurred over the Cambrian Period, which lasted for about 50 million years... I believe I have already given sufficient evidence for the dating of the Cambrian.

Your turn... I would appreciate answers to my questions now.  Thanks.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2011,14:23

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,13:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,09:32)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,04:11)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you are saying that bacteria have an endocrine system.

That's very interesting.  How many glands do bacteria have?  Where are they?  I didn't notice huge masses of tissues producing hormones the last time I looked at a bacteria.

Again, you claim is that the "Endocrine system selects the phenotype".

You entire evidence is... it could be?  Really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm saying bacteria  could very well have a homologous system

A bacterial hormone (the SCB1) directly controls the expression of a pathway-specific regulatory gene in the cryptic type I polyketide biosynthetic gene cluster of Streptomyces coelicolor.
[URL=http://www.mendeley.com/research/bacterial-hormone-scb1-directly-controls-expression-pathwayspecific-regulatory-gene-crypti

c-type-i-polyketide-biosynthetic-gene-cluster-streptomyces-coelicolor/]http://www.mendeley.com/researc....licolor[/URL]

Phenotypic plasticity is the process by which all groups of plants and animals modify their development, physiology, growth, and behavior in response to environmental stimuli (Crespi et al 2004). Hormones play a key role in switching on phenotypic expressions. One of my favorite examples is where hormones diffuse into cells where they can bind to hormone receptors at specific DNA targets. This receptor activation within the nucleus results in the transcription of mRNA and the synthesis of new proteins (West-Eberhard 2005). In other words, God has given us a miraculous survival tool. You will hear the media and academia shout mutations but bacteria only constantly adapt and do not change into anything other than bacteria. Same goes with any other critter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Earth, Moon, and Stars.

This is NOT a change in PHENOTYPE.  This is the activation of a gene.  

OK, I think it now obvious to anyone who does know what's going on that you don't.

Again, I'd appreciate those questions answered.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,14:49

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,09:28)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,13:59)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 02 2011,10:45)
BTW: You STILL haven't talked about your position and evidence for it.

Perhaps you should ask your question of me again.  Since I appear to have forgotten it since you have been gone for over a week.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes you are still avoiding my responses to you on page 8 and 9 and also for about the tenth time you have avoided my request for you to describe in your own words natural mutation selection and where it leads to different orders etc..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh.  that?

OK, so if I answer it AGAIN, then you will answer all of my questions?  

Excellent, I'll hold you to that.

First of all, you have a fundamental misunderstanding (color me surprised).  Orders are not a level at which mutation and selection play a part.  Orders are large groupings of taxonomically similar species and genuses.

Consider the following:
Kingdom
phylum
class
order
family
genus
species

This can easily be remembered by the phrase
King
Phillip
came
over
for
good
sex
(well, that's what I heard!)

Now, where are populations of organisms in this list?  The species level.  Where are individuals on this list?  The species level.  

All the action, as it where, happens at the species and (very, very rarely) the genus level (i.e. I only know of one speciation event that was significant enough to result in a change of genus*)

Now, why will mutation and selection NOT result in a change of family or order?

Because the family and order groupings are based on very specific anatomical features that, because of the nature of evolution, will not change.

for example, the order Carnivora is based on organisms that have the following characters:
carnassial teeth
no fewer than 4 toes on each foot
well developed canine teeth
6 incisors, 2 canines
many have 'dew claws' or vestigial first digits

And yet, organisms in as wide a range as polar bears to palm civets are all in this category.  The requirements for fitting into this order are listed.

It will be nearly impossible for a population of non-carnivores to evolve into carnivores.

What you are asking is that a species shed all the characteristics that make it a part of whatever order it currently is (if you use Artiodactyl as an example, then the population would have to gain two toes, change the entire morphology of it's foot, change from herbivore to carnivore (with the unique digestive system of artiodactyles disappearing and being replaced by a carnivore system (i.e. three chambered stomach going away, shortening intestines, biochemistry devoted to plant material converting to meat, etc.))  etc. etc. etc.

Do you begin to see the picture?

No one, not a single real scientist on the planet would suggest that is even possible, much less a requirement that evolution be able to accomplish.

Basically, you are asking how evolution can turn a duck into a crocodile and the answer is, it can't.  If you believe that this falsifies evolution, then you don't even know what evolution is, much less be capable of developing coherent arguments against it.



* interestingly, this paper (which I have asked if you wanted earlier) shows that a mutation in a plant species did result in a change of genus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm I am glad that we agree that animals don’t mutate into other classes of animals. And here I always thought Panda’s Thumb believed herbivorous pandas mutated from Ursines. I guess you would also say that herb eaters like afarensis or habilis didn’t mutate into meat eating homos? Come to think of it, the priest over at Nat. Geo. have been saying the vegi orangutan is genetically closer to meet eating homos than are chimps. Of course you don’t really believe that.

Interestingly, epigenetic plasticity does allow some animals to alter to or from strict carnivorous and herbivorous diets. You should read up on it sometime
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,15:24

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,11:39)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,01:09)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where and when did he say this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, forastero.  So Darwin talked about the biota (first known use of this word: 1901) of the Vendian (1952), in a book published in 1993.  

When did Darwin die?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, its called a citation
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 03 2011,15:26

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,15:24)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,11:39)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,01:09)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where and when did he say this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, forastero.  So Darwin talked about the biota (first known use of this word: 1901) of the Vendian (1952), in a book published in 1993.  

When did Darwin die?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, its called a citation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But I thought your library was packed up?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,15:34

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,14:12)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,13:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,09:32)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,04:11)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you are saying that bacteria have an endocrine system.

That's very interesting.  How many glands do bacteria have?  Where are they?  I didn't notice huge masses of tissues producing hormones the last time I looked at a bacteria.

Again, you claim is that the "Endocrine system selects the phenotype".

You entire evidence is... it could be?  Really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm saying bacteria  could very well have a homologous system

A bacterial hormone (the SCB1) directly controls the expression of a pathway-specific regulatory gene in the cryptic type I polyketide biosynthetic gene cluster of Streptomyces coelicolor.
[URL=http://www.mendeley.com/research/bacterial-hormone-scb1-directly-controls-expression-pathwayspecific-regulatory-gene-crypti


c-type-i-polyketide-biosynthetic-gene-cluster-streptomyces-coelicolor/]http://www.mendeley.com/researc....licolor[/URL]

Phenotypic plasticity is the process by which all groups of plants and animals modify their development, physiology, growth, and behavior in response to environmental stimuli (Crespi et al 2004). Hormones play a key role in switching on phenotypic expressions. One of my favorite examples is where hormones diffuse into cells where they can bind to hormone receptors at specific DNA targets. This receptor activation within the nucleus results in the transcription of mRNA and the synthesis of new proteins (West-Eberhard 2005). In other words, God has given us a miraculous survival tool. You will hear the media and academia shout mutations but bacteria only constantly adapt and do not change into anything other than bacteria. Same goes with any other critter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said...

"Endocrine system determines phenotype"

Do you still support that claim or not?  If you do, then evidence has been asked for several times and now, once more.

Further, I note that you have not acted in good faith, I answered your question, quite thoroughly I might add (and in my own words), you have not yet done so.

Finally, I would like to point out that the BURIAL EVENT probably did occur in seconds.  It's called a landslide.  I'm sure you can find a video of one on youtube.

However, the landslide (even if underwater on the continental shelf) burial event is NOT the Cambrian Explosion.  That is the surge in diversity that occurred over the Cambrian Period, which lasted for about 50 million years... I believe I have already given sufficient evidence for the dating of the Cambrian.

Your turn... I would appreciate answers to my questions now.  Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am glad we agree that the Cambrian fossils were buried quickly by a great calamity but when scientists talk about Cambrian explosions, they are not referring to the burial part.

A genotype’s Polyphenisms are the reaction norms that are selected across a range of environments by the very flexible and dynamic endocrine system but in accord to it’s cell’s epigenetic code.  

The endocrine system interacts with the immune and nervous systems to select, regulate, control, activate, program, reorginize, transduce ,disrupt, turn on, turn off, binds to DNA receceptors, modify nucleotide bases, splice, edit,  transcribe, acquire, learn, memorize, Imprint, methylate, demethylate, canalise, deacylate, acetylate etc etc etc….

From Darwin to Dawkins, evolutionists have always tried to suppress the idea of non-random biological events because it suggested theism. In your own fervor to deny purposeful selection, you have willfully conformed to the dogma of materialistic randomness of super-race Mother Nature Selection   preached to you by the slave trade schools of Anthropology and racists eugenics.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,15:35

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 03 2011,15:26)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,15:24)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,11:39)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,01:09)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where and when did he say this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, forastero.  So Darwin talked about the biota (first known use of this word: 1901) of the Vendian (1952), in a book published in 1993.  

When did Darwin die?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, its called a citation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But I thought your library was packed up?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah I'm renovating
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 03 2011,15:38

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,15:35)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 03 2011,15:26)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,15:24)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,11:39)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,01:09)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where and when did he say this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, forastero.  So Darwin talked about the biota (first known use of this word: 1901) of the Vendian (1952), in a book published in 1993.  

When did Darwin die?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, its called a citation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But I thought your library was packed up?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah I'm renovating
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's amazing that with the books all packed up you can remember the name and pages numbers of the appropriate sections. Designer be praised!
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 03 2011,15:43

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,13:24)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,11:39)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,01:09)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where and when did he say this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, forastero.  So Darwin talked about the biota (first known use of this word: 1901) of the Vendian (1952), in a book published in 1993.  

When did Darwin die?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, its called a citation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, muppet, it's called a direct quotation: Charles Darwin once said...  Where and when?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,15:47

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,14:23)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,13:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,09:32)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,04:11)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you are saying that bacteria have an endocrine system.

That's very interesting.  How many glands do bacteria have?  Where are they?  I didn't notice huge masses of tissues producing hormones the last time I looked at a bacteria.

Again, you claim is that the "Endocrine system selects the phenotype".

You entire evidence is... it could be?  Really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm saying bacteria  could very well have a homologous system

A bacterial hormone (the SCB1) directly controls the expression of a pathway-specific regulatory gene in the cryptic type I polyketide biosynthetic gene cluster of Streptomyces coelicolor.
[URL=http://www.mendeley.com/research/bacterial-hormone-scb1-directly-controls-expression-pathwayspecific-regulatory-gene-crypti


c-type-i-polyketide-biosynthetic-gene-cluster-streptomyces-coelicolor/]http://www.mendeley.com/researc....licolor[/URL]

Phenotypic plasticity is the process by which all groups of plants and animals modify their development, physiology, growth, and behavior in response to environmental stimuli (Crespi et al 2004). Hormones play a key role in switching on phenotypic expressions. One of my favorite examples is where hormones diffuse into cells where they can bind to hormone receptors at specific DNA targets. This receptor activation within the nucleus results in the transcription of mRNA and the synthesis of new proteins (West-Eberhard 2005). In other words, God has given us a miraculous survival tool. You will hear the media and academia shout mutations but bacteria only constantly adapt and do not change into anything other than bacteria. Same goes with any other critter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Earth, Moon, and Stars.

This is NOT a change in PHENOTYPE.  This is the activation of a gene.  

OK, I think it now obvious to anyone who does know what's going on that you don't.

Again, I'd appreciate those questions answered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Activations and deactivation are one of the ways that the endocrine system selects expressions of a gene's polyphenisms

"In polyphenic development, hormones control a switch between alternative developmental pathways so that individuals with identical genotypes can develop dramatically different phenotypes. The hormones that control polyphenic development (juvenile hormone, ecdysteroids, and a few neurohormones) are the same as those that control insect metamorphosis. Hence an understanding of the endocrine regulation of metamorphosis has proven essential for understanding the control of polyphenic developmental switches."

< http://www.biology.duke.edu/nijhout....ism.htm >
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,15:51

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 03 2011,15:38)
It's amazing that with the books all packed up you can remember the name and pages numbers of the appropriate sections. Designer be praised!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have used the quote several times but didnt quote the original source. I will get the original source though for the many straw grabbers
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2011,15:56

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,14:49)
Hmm I am glad that we agree that animals don’t mutate into other classes of animals. And here I always thought Panda’s Thumb believed herbivorous pandas mutated from Ursines. I guess you would also say that herb eaters like afarensis or habilis didn’t mutate into meat eating homos? Come to think of it, the priest over at Nat. Geo. have been saying the vegi orangutan is genetically closer to meet eating homos than are chimps. Of course you don’t really believe that.

Interestingly, epigenetic plasticity does allow some animals to alter to or from strict carnivorous and herbivorous diets. You should read up on it sometime
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'll not very carefully what I said and didn't say.

I said that carnivores have carnassials and that artiodactyles have three stomachs.  

I said that no one, not even biologists expect mutations to change an artiodactyl into a carnivore (of the order carnivora).

Since then, you have changed your mind and now you want me to explain how the common ancestor of bears resulted in both pandas (which are effectively obligate herbivores) and polar bears (which are effectively obligate carnivores).

Do you see the difference in what you are saying?  I doubt it.

Your claim was for me to explain how mutations and natural selection could change orders of species.  This is exactly as I described it.  This is having an ancestral species that is an artidactyl, given time, will have descendants that are members of carnivora.  This is, of course, impossible.  It is extremely unlikely that all the traits of carnivores would arise in exactly the same way a second time, especially from an order that it already specialized in another direction (three stomachs, for example).

However, you have shifted the goalpost and are now demanding the evolutionary history of bears.  Note that even though the giant panda is almost an obligate herbivore, it STILL has the characteristics of the order carnivora (carnassials, a short intestinal tract (which is why it must eat so much, it's digestive system is very poor for the food it consimes), 4 toes per limb, etc).

Perhaps you should read, the evolutionary history of bears.  

Kemp, T.S. (2005). The Origin and Evolution of Mammals. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-850760-4.

Wang Banyue and Qiu Zhanxiang (2005). "Notes on Early Oligocene Ursids (Carnivora, Mammalia) from Saint Jacques, Nei Mongol, China" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 279 (279): 116–124. doi:10.1206/0003-0090(2003)279<0116:C>2.0.CO;2.

Krause, J.; Unger, T.; Noçon, A.; Malaspinas, A.; Kolokotronis, S.; Stiller, M.; Soibelzon, L.; Spriggs, H.; Dear, P. H.; Briggs, A. W.; Bray, S. C. E.; O'Brien, S. J.; Rabeder, G.; Matheus, P.; Cooper, A.; Slatkin, M.; Pääbo, S.; Hofreiter, M. (2008-07-28). "Mitochondrial genomes reveal an explosive radiation of extinct and extant bears near the Miocene-Pliocene boundary". BMC Evolutionary Biology 8 (220): 220. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-8-220. PMC 2518930. PMID 18662376.

Soibelzon, L. H.; Tonni, E. P.; Bond, M. (October 2005). "The fossil record of South American short-faced bears (Ursidae, Tremarctinae)". Journal of South American Earth Sciences 20 (1–2): 105–113. doi:10.1016/j.jsames.2005.07.005.

Qiu Zhanxiang (2003). "Dispersals of Neogene Carnivorans between Asia and North America" (PDF). Bulletin American Museum of Natural History 279 (279): 18–31. doi:10.1206/0003-0090(2003)279<0018:C>2.0.CO;2.

Kurtén, B., 1995. The cave bear story: life and death of a vanished animal, Björn Kurtén, Columbia University Press

Or better yet, (here's another question you will chicken out on and not answer), what is your explanation for the apparent confusion here?  Why would a member of the order carnivora, with all the carnivore specializations, be eating plants?  Please explain with with specific references to the designer and why his designs make no sense.

Again, you make a claim, but do not back it up.  Citation please, specifically of this: "epigenetic plasticity does allow some animals to alter to or from strict carnivorous and herbivorous diets"

And please show EXACTLY how the phenotype changes.  I would expect that you not make the same mistake previously and say that activating a gene a change in phenotype.  At a minimum, I need the scientific paper reference.  I would really like a summary of the paper in your own words so that I know you understand this.

I'll just add these two to the list of questions you have yet to answer... here:

define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.
[strike]Define robust in terms of early man.[/strike]
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man  (The Daily Mail is not peer-reviewed evidence and you have not cited evidence for other claims)
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time
Describe how you explain the diversity of order carnivora such that the same order contains obligate carnivores and obligate herbivores.  Relate this information to the information provided regarding the evolutionary history of these organisms (IOW: Let's compare what you say and what I say to the actual genes of these critters).
Provide a citation that shows how an environmental change causes a change in the phenotype that would allow an animal that is an obligate carnivore to change to an obligate herbivorous diet.
Provide a summary of the research in your own words.

This is quite a list and it will only get larger.  I suggest you start tackling it.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2011,16:05

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,15:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,14:23)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,13:16)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,09:32)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,04:11)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,18:24)
I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What do you mean? Even insects and earthworms are known to have an endocrine system; and we are only recently finding out things about Prokaryote cognition communication, learning, coorperation, cell-surface sensory organs, hormones etc
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you are saying that bacteria have an endocrine system.

That's very interesting.  How many glands do bacteria have?  Where are they?  I didn't notice huge masses of tissues producing hormones the last time I looked at a bacteria.

Again, you claim is that the "Endocrine system selects the phenotype".

You entire evidence is... it could be?  Really.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm saying bacteria  could very well have a homologous system

A bacterial hormone (the SCB1) directly controls the expression of a pathway-specific regulatory gene in the cryptic type I polyketide biosynthetic gene cluster of Streptomyces coelicolor.
[URL=http://www.mendeley.com/research/bacterial-hormone-scb1-directly-controls-expression-pathwayspecific-regulatory-gene-crypti



c-type-i-polyketide-biosynthetic-gene-cluster-streptomyces-coelicolor/]http://www.mendeley.com/researc....licolor[/URL]

Phenotypic plasticity is the process by which all groups of plants and animals modify their development, physiology, growth, and behavior in response to environmental stimuli (Crespi et al 2004). Hormones play a key role in switching on phenotypic expressions. One of my favorite examples is where hormones diffuse into cells where they can bind to hormone receptors at specific DNA targets. This receptor activation within the nucleus results in the transcription of mRNA and the synthesis of new proteins (West-Eberhard 2005). In other words, God has given us a miraculous survival tool. You will hear the media and academia shout mutations but bacteria only constantly adapt and do not change into anything other than bacteria. Same goes with any other critter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Earth, Moon, and Stars.

This is NOT a change in PHENOTYPE.  This is the activation of a gene.  

OK, I think it now obvious to anyone who does know what's going on that you don't.

Again, I'd appreciate those questions answered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Activations and deactivation are one of the ways that the endocrine system selects expressions of a gene's polyphenisms

"In polyphenic development, hormones control a switch between alternative developmental pathways so that individuals with identical genotypes can develop dramatically different phenotypes. The hormones that control polyphenic development (juvenile hormone, ecdysteroids, and a few neurohormones) are the same as those that control insect metamorphosis. Hence an understanding of the endocrine regulation of metamorphosis has proven essential for understanding the control of polyphenic developmental switches."

< http://www.biology.duke.edu/nijhout....ism.htm >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You still aren't listening.

You said

"the endocrine system changes an organisms PHENOTYPE"

Evidence please.

Everything you are describing has NOTHING to do with the phenotype.  You are describing genes activating or deactivating based on environmental cues.

There is no one here that doubts this happens.

What you said though is completely different than what you are talking about.

When you get around to defining those things in your own words, then maybe we can help explain why you are wrong better.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 03 2011,16:06

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,16:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 03 2011,15:38)
It's amazing that with the books all packed up you can remember the name and pages numbers of the appropriate sections. Designer be praised!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have used the quote several times but didnt quote the original source. I will get the original source though for the many straw grabbers
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


pointing out your lies = straw grabbing

LOL
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,16:13

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 03 2011,06:08)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,20:12)
Hmm so your saying the story represents one spirit being impersonating a creator and another spirit being dismissing his claims?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.  The Abrahamic god, worshiped by Jews, Christians and Moslems, is mistaken and his claims are in error.  He claims to be the Immortal Omnipotent Creator, but his claims are wrong.   He is long lived, but not immortal.  He is powerful, but not omnipotent.  He didn't create the world, but is deluded in thinking that he did.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tantric rituals involve ...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There are two possibilities here.  First, you have been initiated into one of the Tantric lineages, and in the process sworn yourself not to reveal its secrets to the uninitiated.  In this case you are an oath breaker and not to be trusted.  Second, that you have not been initiated and that you are talking about things of which you have no knowledge.  Again, what you say is not to be trusted.  I consider that the second possibility is more likely.

Tantras are secret.  Even when they are written down, they are written in coded language so that the uninitiated cannot understand them.  Knowing that the translation of "a red herring" is "a pink fish" does not help you get to the real meaning of the text.  The words of a written Tantra are deliberately designed to be misleading to the uninitiated.  You cannot learn Tantra from a book; you have to be initiated.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow! I always heard that the Buddhist big wigs considered Jesus a great prophet but I didnt know that their scriptures cited him and Abraham as arrogant

Its not so secret when you got the likes of everyone from the Beatles to the Nazi SS going to Tibet to learn Tantra. Heck Paul McCartney even manages tantric schools

The heavy duty tantra is so secret due to its sadomasochism, pedophilia, so called compassionate torture, self mutilation etc etc...

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....4D099R0 >

THE SHADOW OF THE DALAI LAMA: SEXUALITY, MAGIC AND POLITICS IN TIBETAN BUDDHISM < http://www.american-buddha.com/shadow.....lai.htm >

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....s6cNxbY >

I was a Tantric sex slave – June Campbell
www.trimondi.de/EN/deba02.html

The Emperor's Tantric Robes - an Interview with June Campbell
www.anandainfo.com/tantric_robes.html

Kloset Kalu, the Secret Lover
www.american-buddha.com/kloset.kalu.htm

Buddhist Clergy Sexual Abuse: Annotated Bibliography
www.trimondi.de/EN/deba01.html

Best-selling Buddhist Author accused of sexual abuse – Don Lattin
www.american-buddha.com/sogyal.htm

Buddhist Sect Alarmed by Reports that Leader Kept His AIDS a Secret - John Dart
www.aegis.com/news/lt/1989/LT890302.html

Anonymous letter to American Buddha
www.american-buddha.com/letter%20from%20anonymous.htm

Tibetan Buddhist Master infects Gay Disciples with HIV
www.flameout.org/flameout/gurus/tibetan.html

Sonam Kazi Family Values
www.american-buddha.com/kazi.family.htm

www.american-buddha.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?t=340

Echoes of Nalinika: Monk in the Dock – Enid Adam
www.american-buddha.com/echoes.nalinika.htm

Karaoke Monk booted out – BBC News Asia
www.american-buddha.com/karaoke.monk.htm

Buddhism and Misogyny (historical overview) – V. and V. Trimondi
www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Part-1-01.htm

The “Tantric Female Sacrifice" – V. and V. Trimondi
www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Part-1-03.htm

Beatings are nothing new
www.taipeitimes.com/News/archives/2000/01/22/0000021071

Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth - Michael Parenti
www.swans.com/library/art9/mparen01.html

Monks arrested over sexual abuse of Sri Lankan war orphans
< http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se....O8.html >

< http://news.bbc.co.uk/2....846.stm >

Buddhism’s pedophile monks – Uwe Siemon-Netto
www.american-buddha.com/pedophile.monks.htm

Princeton Prof. says no to Sri Lanka Child Monks
www.american-buddha.com/child.monks.htm
Posted by: rossum on Nov. 03 2011,16:19

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,12:39)
When you Buddhist and pseudist gonna explain why you dance to the tune of spontaneous generation from primordial soup that accidentally exploded into a super huge zoo?   Oh I remember. There was this thing called abiogenesis where spontaneous but accidental aggregation of lipids and proteins formed primitive spaghetti monsters from the fountain of soup.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have already shown us that you do not understand either evolution or Buddhism.  We can now add abiogenesis and chemistry to the list.

Chemistry is not an "accidental" process.  Do you think is is "accidental" that exactly two atoms of hydrogen, not three, not four, but always two, combine with a single atom of oxygen to make a molecule of water?  Hint: valency.

Read something about abiogenesis and learn where proteins appeared in the process.  Hint: it wasn't either at the start or in the middle.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many years later Chandra Wickramasinghe and fred Hoyle who calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup would grant little chance to evolutionary processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We now know that you can't even properly proof-read the stuff you cut and paste.  Go back to the original you copied this from and check those numbers.  You will see "10^40,000" and "10^80", or their equivalents.  You are distinctly failing to impress here.

Wickramasinghe and Hoyle were excellent astronomers.  They were less good biologists.  Their probability calculations included the effects of random mutation, but failed to include the effects of natural selection.  Since evolution includes both random mutation and natural selection, their numbers do not reflect evolution.  GIGO.  I suggest that you redo their calculations with the effect of natural selection included.

rossum
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 03 2011,16:31

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 03 2011,14:19)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,12:39)
When you Buddhist and pseudist gonna explain why you dance to the tune of spontaneous generation from primordial soup that accidentally exploded into a super huge zoo?   Oh I remember. There was this thing called abiogenesis where spontaneous but accidental aggregation of lipids and proteins formed primitive spaghetti monsters from the fountain of soup.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have already shown us that you do not understand either evolution or Buddhism.  We can now add abiogenesis and chemistry to the list.

Chemistry is not an "accidental" process.  Do you think is is "accidental" that exactly two atoms of hydrogen, not three, not four, but always two, combine with a single atom of oxygen to make a molecule of water?  Hint: valency.

Read something about abiogenesis and learn where proteins appeared in the process.  Hint: it wasn't either at the start or in the middle.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Many years later Chandra Wickramasinghe and fred Hoyle who calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 1040,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup would grant little chance to evolutionary processes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We now know that you can't even properly proof-read the stuff you cut and paste.  Go back to the original you copied this from and check those numbers.  You will see "10^40,000" and "10^80", or their equivalents.  You are distinctly failing to impress here.

Wickramasinghe and Hoyle were excellent astronomers.  They were less good biologists.  Their probability calculations included the effects of random mutation, but failed to include the effects of natural selection.  Since evolution includes both random mutation and natural selection, their numbers do not reflect evolution.  GIGO.  I suggest that you redo their calculations with the effect of natural selection included.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps in muppet universe (where Darwin was alive in 1993 and Hitler was a Buddhist) there are only 1080 atoms.
Posted by: rossum on Nov. 03 2011,16:32

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,16:13)
Wow! I always heard that the Buddhist big wigs considered Jesus a great prophet but I didnt know that their scriptures cited him and Abraham as arrogant
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You heard wrong.  Buddhism doesn't do prophets, we leave that to the Abrahamic religions.  Jesus is normally considered to be a Bodhisattva.  Abraham we don't think about much, since we ignore most of what he said.  All the best bits were repeated by Jesus anyway, and being prepared to make a human sacrifice of your own child to appease a bloodthirsty god is definitely un-Buddhist behaviour.  It is YHWH we see as arrogant, claiming to be what he isn't.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
{list of Buddhists doing unwise actions}
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, some Buddhists fall short of the standards they should be following.  So?  People of all religions, and of none, do sometimes fall short of moral standards.  Timothy McVeigh was American, does that mean all Americans are morally wrong and that no moral person can be an American?  No, I don't think so either.

rossum
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,16:34

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,15:56)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,14:49)
Hmm I am glad that we agree that animals don’t mutate into other classes of animals. And here I always thought Panda’s Thumb believed herbivorous pandas mutated from Ursines. I guess you would also say that herb eaters like afarensis or habilis didn’t mutate into meat eating homos? Come to think of it, the priest over at Nat. Geo. have been saying the vegi orangutan is genetically closer to meet eating homos than are chimps. Of course you don’t really believe that.

Interestingly, epigenetic plasticity does allow some animals to alter to or from strict carnivorous and herbivorous diets. You should read up on it sometime
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'll not very carefully what I said and didn't say.

I said that carnivores have carnassials and that artiodactyles have three stomachs.  

I said that no one, not even biologists expect mutations to change an artiodactyl into a carnivore (of the order carnivora).

Since then, you have changed your mind and now you want me to explain how the common ancestor of bears resulted in both pandas (which are effectively obligate herbivores) and polar bears (which are effectively obligate carnivores).

Do you see the difference in what you are saying?  I doubt it.

Your claim was for me to explain how mutations and natural selection could change orders of species.  This is exactly as I described it.  This is having an ancestral species that is an artidactyl, given time, will have descendants that are members of carnivora.  This is, of course, impossible.  It is extremely unlikely that all the traits of carnivores would arise in exactly the same way a second time, especially from an order that it already specialized in another direction (three stomachs, for example).

However, you have shifted the goalpost and are now demanding the evolutionary history of bears.  Note that even though the giant panda is almost an obligate herbivore, it STILL has the characteristics of the order carnivora (carnassials, a short intestinal tract (which is why it must eat so much, it's digestive system is very poor for the food it consimes), 4 toes per limb, etc).

Perhaps you should read, the evolutionary history of bears.  

Kemp, T.S. (2005). The Origin and Evolution of Mammals. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-850760-4.

Wang Banyue and Qiu Zhanxiang (2005). "Notes on Early Oligocene Ursids (Carnivora, Mammalia) from Saint Jacques, Nei Mongol, China" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 279 (279): 116–124. doi:10.1206/0003-0090(2003)279<0116:C>2.0.CO;2.

Krause, J.; Unger, T.; Noçon, A.; Malaspinas, A.; Kolokotronis, S.; Stiller, M.; Soibelzon, L.; Spriggs, H.; Dear, P. H.; Briggs, A. W.; Bray, S. C. E.; O'Brien, S. J.; Rabeder, G.; Matheus, P.; Cooper, A.; Slatkin, M.; Pääbo, S.; Hofreiter, M. (2008-07-28). "Mitochondrial genomes reveal an explosive radiation of extinct and extant bears near the Miocene-Pliocene boundary". BMC Evolutionary Biology 8 (220): 220. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-8-220. PMC 2518930. PMID 18662376.

Soibelzon, L. H.; Tonni, E. P.; Bond, M. (October 2005). "The fossil record of South American short-faced bears (Ursidae, Tremarctinae)". Journal of South American Earth Sciences 20 (1–2): 105–113. doi:10.1016/j.jsames.2005.07.005.

Qiu Zhanxiang (2003). "Dispersals of Neogene Carnivorans between Asia and North America" (PDF). Bulletin American Museum of Natural History 279 (279): 18–31. doi:10.1206/0003-0090(2003)279<0018:C>2.0.CO;2.

Kurtén, B., 1995. The cave bear story: life and death of a vanished animal, Björn Kurtén, Columbia University Press

Or better yet, (here's another question you will chicken out on and not answer), what is your explanation for the apparent confusion here?  Why would a member of the order carnivora, with all the carnivore specializations, be eating plants?  Please explain with with specific references to the designer and why his designs make no sense.

Again, you make a claim, but do not back it up.  Citation please, specifically of this: "epigenetic plasticity does allow some animals to alter to or from strict carnivorous and herbivorous diets"

And please show EXACTLY how the phenotype changes.  I would expect that you not make the same mistake previously and say that activating a gene a change in phenotype.  At a minimum, I need the scientific paper reference.  I would really like a summary of the paper in your own words so that I know you understand this.

I'll just add these two to the list of questions you have yet to answer... here:

define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.
[strike]Define robust in terms of early man.[/strike]
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man  (The Daily Mail is not peer-reviewed evidence and you have not cited evidence for other claims)
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time
Describe how you explain the diversity of order carnivora such that the same order contains obligate carnivores and obligate herbivores.  Relate this information to the information provided regarding the evolutionary history of these organisms (IOW: Let's compare what you say and what I say to the actual genes of these critters).
Provide a citation that shows how an environmental change causes a change in the phenotype that would allow an animal that is an obligate carnivore to change to an obligate herbivorous diet.
Provide a summary of the research in your own words.

This is quite a list and it will only get larger.  I suggest you start tackling it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"given enough time" Is that kinda like the monkey that that took a billion years to type a novel or the tornado that made a 747 in the junk yard?

Ooh back to bears and cats again but this time with some teeth. This could be the penal system's first sign of evidence against me since they shipped me here

So did the

Please do elaborate in your own words the mechanics of how the polar bear and Panda mutated from Ursus arctos?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 03 2011,16:42

Recursive selection, quite unlike tornado / junkyard spontaneous creation.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 03 2011,16:53

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,16:34)
Please do elaborate in your own words the mechanics of how the polar bear and Panda mutated from Ursus arctos?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll make a deal with you. Please provide the ID (or whatever) explanation for the same and for every word in your answer that relates specifically to that I'll provide in return 10 on the same topic from my perspective.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,18:12

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 03 2011,16:32)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,16:13)
Wow! I always heard that the Buddhist big wigs considered Jesus a great prophet but I didnt know that their scriptures cited him and Abraham as arrogant
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You heard wrong.  Buddhism doesn't do prophets, we leave that to the Abrahamic religions.  Jesus is normally considered to be a Bodhisattva.  Abraham we don't think about much, since we ignore most of what he said.  All the best bits were repeated by Jesus anyway, and being prepared to make a human sacrifice of your own child to appease a bloodthirsty god is definitely un-Buddhist behaviour.  It is YHWH we see as arrogant, claiming to be what he isn't.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
{list of Buddhists doing unwise actions}
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, some Buddhists fall short of the standards they should be following.  So?  People of all religions, and of none, do sometimes fall short of moral standards.  Timothy McVeigh was American, does that mean all Americans are morally wrong and that no moral person can be an American?  No, I don't think so either.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yes Buddhist do have so called Messianic prophesies < http://www.maitreya.org/english....ism.htm >

Adi Da was suggested by his devotees to be Maitreya: "an All-Surpassing God-Man yet to come -- a final Avatar, the ultimate Messiah, a consumate Prophet or Enlightened Sage, a Spiritual Deliverer who will appear in the 'late-time', the 'dark' epoch when humanity is lost, apparently cut off from Wisdom, Truth and God. Buddhists call that Expected One 'Maitreya'." [19]  Carolyn Lee. "Adi Da: The Promised God-Man Is Here: The Ruchira Sannyasin Order of Adidam Ruchiradam:” Jesus within Buddhism. It has been suggested that within Mahayana Buddhism the legendary Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara developed out of Jesus having been in Tibet and India. 44 For one reason, this bodhisattva is thought to have reached his earliest known (legendary) form around the second or third century C.E.,45 which timing is appropriate for the hypothesis. For another reason, the book by Professor John Holt of Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine, suggests that the origins of the Avalokitesvara cult was in northwest India in the second century.46

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....YtPx--U >
The Kalachakra Tantra contains the prophecy of a holy war between Buddhists and so-called "barbarian" Muslims (Skt. mleccha). < http://www.berzinarchives.com/web....ng.html >

In accordance with a prophecy in the Sutra on Magical Perception, Padmakara transformed himself into the monk Wangpo Dey in order to convert King Ashoka. Having established Ashoka in unshakable faith, during a single night he erected in this world one million stupas containing the relics of the Tathagata. He also subdued several non-Buddhist teachers, was poisoned by one king but remained unharmed. When he then was thrown into the river he made the river flow upstream and danced about in mid-air. Through that he became known as Powerful Garuda Youth.

The Buddha gave him this prophecy: "Many aeons ago you were the gelong Chöchi Lodro. Now you are Zipji Muchee, and in a future life you will become Buddha Amitabha." For thousands of millions of years Zipji Muchee practised the Dharma. He vowed that he would not achieve buddhahood until every being who prayed to be in his buddha-realm could be born there. Eventually his wishing-prayer was fulfilled, and he became Amitabha. The buddha-realm he manifested is known as Déwachen. Ten aeons/kalpas have passed since Amitabha established that realm.

Timothy McVeigh was just one agnostic who confessed: "science is my religion".  Buddhism is violent in essence and influences many. Oh and another reason tantric rituals are kept secret is because often involve casting spells
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 03 2011,18:27

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,18:12)
Oh and another reason tantric rituals are kept secret is because often involve casting spells
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 03 2011,18:32

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,12:59)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2011,08:04)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,03:09)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,01:35)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where and when did he say this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My library is all packed up at the moment up but I am pretty sure you will find your answer in the following

Mikhail Fedonkin, "Vendian body fossils and trace fossils," in S. Bengston, ed., Early Life on Earth. Nobel Symposium No. 84 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), pp. 370-388; p. 388.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Come now, you don't really expect us to think you read something that requires a trip to the library?

The odds are that you grabbed both the hearsay and the reference from < this site >.

ETA: Forgot to mention that you couldn't even get that much right. Here's what the page said:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

[...] Commenting on the puzzling status of the Ediacaran (Vendian) fossils, the Russian paleontologist Mikhail Fedonkin writes:

We are now in the situation Charles Darwin found himself in about 150 years ago. He was puzzled by the absence of the ancestors of the Cambrian invertebrates, considering this fact as a strong argument against his theory of gradualistic evolution of species. We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian fauna as well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state."5

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Mistaking something explicitly attributed to Fedonkin as something Darwin wrote seems about your speed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I actually own the book and will dig it out just for you
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Color me curious... how would "digging out" Fedonkin's book help you with the fact that you claimed Charles Darwin wrote something that he did not write?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 03 2011,18:40

it could help because on every page are potential scores of nonsequitors and red herrings poison smoke distract nuke hominem wire ads.

what is this thing, a wikipedia bot?  LOL
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,19:19

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 03 2011,13:48)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,13:26)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,10:39)
     
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 03 2011,04:45)
All right, all that remains is for you to explain how it really was, what really happened. That's all I want to know.

BTW, have you ever read  Origins?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean origins of Darwin's so called "Favored Races" that compared black slaves to apes and justified their exploitation with his evolutionary replacement theory ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Answer of "No, I haven't" duly noted.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quite. But if forastero wants to read about Darwin's opinions on slavery, start < here >.

Though I am not counting on it, somebody may actually learn something.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In The Origin of Species, By the Preservation of Favoured Races, Darwin writes: “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man”

Darwin continues: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaafhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his meanest allies will be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 17

In 1870 Max Muller, an evolutionist anthropologist from the Anthropological Review of London, had divided human races into seven categories. Aborigines appeared at the bottom, and the Aryan race, that of the white Europeans, at the top.

H. K. Rusden, a famous Social Darwinist, had this to say about the aborigines in 1876: "The survival of the fittest means that might is right. And we thus invoke and remorselessly fulfil the inexorable law of natural selection when exterminating the inferior Australian and Maori races… and we appropriate their patrimony coolly".32


And in 1890 the Vice-President of the Royal Society of Tasmania, James Barnard, wrote: "the process of extermination is an axiom of the law of evolution and survival of the fittest." There was therefore, he concluded, no reason to suppose that "there had been any culpable neglect" in the murder and dispossession of the Aboriginal Australian.

The policies aimed at aborigines did not end with massacres. In a frenzied attempt to to find the "missing link", many members of the race were treated like experimental animals. The Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. held the remains of 15,000 people of various races. 10,000 Australian aborigines were sent by ship to the British Museum with the aim of seeing whether or not they were the "missing link" in the transition from animals to human beings. Museums were not just interested in bones, at the same time they kept brains belonging to aborigines and sold them at high prices. There is also proof that Australian aborigines were killed to be used as specimens. The facts below bear witness to this ruthlessness: A death-bed memoir from Korah Wills, who became mayor of Bowen, Queensland in 1866, graphically describes how he killed and dismembered a local tribesman in 1865 to provide a scientific specimen.
Edward Ramsay, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney for 20 years from 1874, was particularly heavily involved. He published a museum booklet which appeared to include Aborigines under the designation of "Australian animals". It also gave instructions not only on how to rob graves, but also on how to plug up bullet wounds in freshly killed "specimens".

A German evolutionist, Amalie Dietrich (nicknamed the 'Angel of Black Death') came to Australia asking station owners for Aborigines to be shot for specimens, particularly skin for stuffing and mounting for her museum employers. Although evicted from at least one property, she shortly returned home with her specimens.

A New South Wales missionary was a horrified witness to the slaughter by mounted police of a group of dozens of Aboriginal men, women and children. Forty-five heads were then boiled down and the 10 best skulls were packed off for overseas.35 All in a frenzied attempt to prove the widespread belief that they were the 'missing link'.

Along with museum curators from around the world, Monaghan says, some of the top names in British science were involved in this large-scale grave-robbing trade.3 These included anatomist Sir Richard Owen, anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith, and Charles Darwin himself. Darwin wrote asking for Tasmanian skulls when only four full-blooded Tasmanian Aborigines were left alive, provided his request would not 'upset' their feelings. Museums were not only interested in bones, but in fresh skins as well. These would provide interesting evolutionary displays when stuffed.


The extermination of the aborigines continued in the 20th century. Among the methods employed in this extermination was the forcible removal of aborigine children from their families. A news story by Alan Thornhill, which appeared in the 28 April 1997 edition of the Philadelphia Daily News, recounted this method used against the aborigines in this way: "keep state welfare agents from taking them away. "The welfare just grabbed you when they found you," one of the stolen children reported, many years later. "Our people would hide us, paint us with charcoal." "I was taken to Moola Bulla," said one cattler worker who was stolen as a child. "We were about 5 or 6 years old." His tale was one of thousands heard by Australia's Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission during its heart-wrenching inquiry into the "stolen generation." From 1910 until the 1970s, some 100,000 aboriginal children were taken from their parents... Light-skinned aboriginal children were seized and handed out to white families for adoption. Dark-skinned children were put in orphanages.36
Even now, the pain is so great that most stories were printed anonymously in the commission's final report, "Bringing Them Home." The commission says the actions of the authorities at that time amounted to genocide as the United Nations defines it. The government has refused to follow the inquiry's recommendation that a tribunal be set up to assess compensation payments for the stolen children.

Darwin gave the following account of Tasmania's Black War:[27] "All the aboriginals have been removed to an island in Bass's Straits, so that Van Diemen's Land enjoys the great advantage of being free from a native population. This most cruel step seems to have been quite unavoidable, as the only means of stopping a fearful succession of robberies, burnings, and murders, committed by the blacks; but which sooner or later must have ended in their utter destruction. I fear there is no doubt that this train of evil and its consequences, originated in the infamous conduct of some of our countrymen."

But it wasnt just Darwin's survival of the fittest that led to the genocide and slavery of Amerindians, Jews, Gypsies, and Africans etc... The Darwin family including Galton, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Hitler etc also hated and feared the idea of race mixing and thus much of their anti slavery talk preferred eugenics and or genocide over slavery
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,19:24

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2011,18:32)
Color me curious... how would "digging out" Fedonkin's book help you with the fact that you claimed Charles Darwin wrote something that he did not write?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its a extremely cited book and contains the original source of course
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,19:28

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2011,16:31)
only 1080 atoms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That was a typo. There are various access keys here but they no longer work for me
Posted by: rossum on Nov. 03 2011,19:31

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,18:12)
Oh yes Buddhist do have so called Messianic prophesies  < http://www.maitreya.org/english....ism.htm >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are just showing your ignorance of Buddhism.  The Maitreya is a Buddha, not a Messiah.  A Messiah is a concept from Judaism, not Buddhism.  Please don't get you religions mixed up.  It merely shows up even further your basic lack of knowledge about the stuff you are copying from the Internet.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Adi Da was suggested by his devotees to be Maitreya
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And his devotees were wrong.  The Maitreya Buddha has not come yet.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Buddha gave him this prophecy:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Buddha is a Buddha, not a prophet.  Again, you are misunderstanding Buddhism.  If you apply concepts from Judaism directly to Buddhism, you will usually be making an error.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Timothy McVeigh was just one agnostic who confessed: "science is my religion".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Irrelevant.  I said that he was an American, which is correct.  I said nothing about his religious beliefs, or lack thereof.  My point obviously missed you completely.  My apologies for my mis-estimate of your level of comprehension.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Buddhism is violent in essence and influences many.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go through the Bible and count up the number of people God kills, or orders to be killed.  Go through the Tripitaka and count up the number of people the Buddha kills, or orders to be killed.  Compare the two numbers, and get back to us on which of the two religions "is violent in essence".  We can agree that Buddhism influences many.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh and another reason tantric rituals are kept secret is because often involve casting spells
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you know this how?  If they are secret, then you don't know what happens in them.  If you know what happens in them, then they aren't secret.  Or perhaps you believe that everything you read on the Internet is true?  That would explain a few things.

rossum
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2011,19:40

He cuts and pastes real gud.

Interestingly, he didn't take out the footnote numbers.

You do realize that copying someone else's work without attribution is immoral and potentially illegal depending on the age of the quote?

BTW: you copied it from here: < http://www.harunyahya.com/disaste....s03.php >

Now why can't you just make a simple link to things you cut and paste.

We're asking for your own words here so that we can be sure you understand the concepts.  sigh..

Just out of curiosity, did you read the quote you posted?

I found this interesting


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In polyphenic development, hormones control a switch between alternative developmental pathways so that individuals with identical genotypes can develop dramatically different phenotypes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did you miss the word that I bolded?  Again, you are simply describing known functions.  Crocodile sex is determined by the temperature at which the eggs incubate.  So what?

That DOES NOT mean that if I keep a crocodile cooler, then it will switch to a female.  It doesn't mean that if I inject estrogen into a male human, that I will get a female human.

I think we may have a difference of opinion about what PHENOTYPE means.

That's why I keep asking you to define the words that you use.  It's not my fault that you don't understand these concepts.

BTW: Copying and pasting (as shown above) does not mean you understand a concept.  

Your specific claim is "The endocrine system can change an organisms phenotype."  This is not development, this is not metamorphasis.  This is a very specific claim.  Do you continue to maintain that this claim is correct?

If so, then please provide evidence where an organisms endocrine system caused a phenotypic change.  If not, then we can stop worrying about.

BTW: Still haven't answered your questions, even after I answered yours.  This seems to indicate an aversion to legitimate discussion and the back and forth of ideas.

Oh, BTW: I already provided you with a series of papers regarding the evolutionary history of the ursids.  If you read those articles I presented you will see one article on the biochemical changes among species, although I'm sure OM would enjoy schooling you on the subject.

Still waiting...
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,19:42

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 03 2011,16:32)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,16:13)
Wow! I always heard that the Buddhist big wigs considered Jesus a great prophet but I didnt know that their scriptures cited him and Abraham as arrogant
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You heard wrong.  Buddhism doesn't do prophets, we leave that to the Abrahamic religions.  Jesus is normally considered to be a Bodhisattva.  Abraham we don't think about much, since we ignore most of what he said.  All the best bits were repeated by Jesus anyway, and being prepared to make a human sacrifice of your own child to appease a bloodthirsty god is definitely un-Buddhist behaviour.  It is YHWH we see as arrogant, claiming to be what he isn't.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
{list of Buddhists doing unwise actions}
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, some Buddhists fall short of the standards they should be following.  So?  People of all religions, and of none, do sometimes fall short of moral standards.  Timothy McVeigh was American, does that mean all Americans are morally wrong and that no moral person can be an American?  No, I don't think so either.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


“By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed by going out to a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was going” (Hebrews 11:8.
Abraham's communication with God was all about the comfort from faith in the coming Messiah who would be willing to pay the ultimate price for us. Abraham faced with the killing his own son helped him to understand and remember this coming sacrifice of the Messiah.

Chakrasamsara/Vajrayogin? 'the Wrathful Lady' Just like the Hindu kali ChakraSamvara/Vajrayogin? with a vajra in her right hand and a kapala (skull cup) in her left hand which is filled with blood that she partakes of with her upturned mouth. Her head is adorned with a crown of five human skulls and she wears a necklace of fifty human skulls. She is depicted as standing in the center of a blazing fire of exalted wisdom. the curved drigug knife in her right hand shows her power to cut the continuum of the delusions and obstacles of her followers and of all living beings. Drinking the nectar of blood from the kapala in her left hand symbolizes her experience of the clear light of bliss.[15] the severed-headed form of Vajrayogin? is similar to the Indian goddess Chinnamasta who is recognized by both Hindus and Buddhists.[17]
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2011,19:48

It's polite to even note Wikipedia when you copy and paste.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrayogini)

Here's a hint.  If you want to claim it as yours, drop the scholarly language and remove the footnotes.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,19:53

Quote (rossum @ Nov. 03 2011,19:31)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,18:12)
Oh yes Buddhist do have so called Messianic prophesies  < http://www.maitreya.org/english....ism.htm >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are just showing your ignorance of Buddhism.  The Maitreya is a Buddha, not a Messiah.  A Messiah is a concept from Judaism, not Buddhism.  Please don't get you religions mixed up.  It merely shows up even further your basic lack of knowledge about the stuff you are copying from the Internet.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Adi Da was suggested by his devotees to be Maitreya
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And his devotees were wrong.  The Maitreya Buddha has not come yet.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Buddha gave him this prophecy:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Buddha is a Buddha, not a prophet.  Again, you are misunderstanding Buddhism.  If you apply concepts from Judaism directly to Buddhism, you will usually be making an error.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Timothy McVeigh was just one agnostic who confessed: "science is my religion".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Irrelevant.  I said that he was an American, which is correct.  I said nothing about his religious beliefs, or lack thereof.  My point obviously missed you completely.  My apologies for my mis-estimate of your level of comprehension.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Buddhism is violent in essence and influences many.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go through the Bible and count up the number of people God kills, or orders to be killed.  Go through the Tripitaka and count up the number of people the Buddha kills, or orders to be killed.  Compare the two numbers, and get back to us on which of the two religions "is violent in essence".  We can agree that Buddhism influences many.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh and another reason tantric rituals are kept secret is because often involve casting spells
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you know this how?  If they are secret, then you don't know what happens in them.  If you know what happens in them, then they aren't secret.  Or perhaps you believe that everything you read on the Internet is true?  That would explain a few things.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow! You you cut off your own scriptures to save your face. Bottom line is that Buddhism references Messianic prophecy.

The phenotypic plasticity of epigentiic immunity (also referred to as the biological arms race) is another way of explaining the Hebrew war against the Canaanites.. This magnificently designed system sends out macrophages (myocytes, monocytes etc..) to encapsulate and destroy cells infected by antigens, viruses, bacteria etc..

Canaanites such as the Amalakites and the Mycenaean Greeks were given over to very depraved lifestyles such as fornication,necrophilia, bestiality, coprophillia, rape, homosexuality, lesbianism, incest,, pedophilia, and human sacrifices. Thus it is more than likely that all the beast and children were slaughtered to prevent the spread of not only deadly behavior, but STDs. Lev 18:03-26.The Hebrews and other peoples of the Exodus were the immune system of God's creation and emerged from that immune cell known as the Ark, which inhabited that cleansing Flood--that great apoptosis which removed the malignant killers of the trees and megafauna
Posted by: Kristine on Nov. 03 2011,19:58

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,19:53)
Quote (rossum @ Nov. 03 2011,19:31)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,18:12)
Oh yes Buddhist do have so called Messianic prophesies  < http://www.maitreya.org/english....ism.htm >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are just showing your ignorance of Buddhism.  The Maitreya is a Buddha, not a Messiah.  A Messiah is a concept from Judaism, not Buddhism.  Please don't get you religions mixed up.  It merely shows up even further your basic lack of knowledge about the stuff you are copying from the Internet.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Adi Da was suggested by his devotees to be Maitreya
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And his devotees were wrong.  The Maitreya Buddha has not come yet.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Buddha gave him this prophecy:
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Buddha is a Buddha, not a prophet.  Again, you are misunderstanding Buddhism.  If you apply concepts from Judaism directly to Buddhism, you will usually be making an error.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Timothy McVeigh was just one agnostic who confessed: "science is my religion".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Irrelevant.  I said that he was an American, which is correct.  I said nothing about his religious beliefs, or lack thereof.  My point obviously missed you completely.  My apologies for my mis-estimate of your level of comprehension.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Buddhism is violent in essence and influences many.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go through the Bible and count up the number of people God kills, or orders to be killed.  Go through the Tripitaka and count up the number of people the Buddha kills, or orders to be killed.  Compare the two numbers, and get back to us on which of the two religions "is violent in essence".  We can agree that Buddhism influences many.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh and another reason tantric rituals are kept secret is because often involve casting spells
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you know this how?  If they are secret, then you don't know what happens in them.  If you know what happens in them, then they aren't secret.  Or perhaps you believe that everything you read on the Internet is true?  That would explain a few things.

rossum
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow! You you cut off your own scriptures to save your face. Bottom line is that Buddhism references Messianic prophecy.

The phenotypic plasticity of epigentiic immunity (also referred to as the biological arms race) is another way of explaining the Hebrew war against the Canaanites.. This magnificently designed system sends out macrophages (myocytes, monocytes etc..) to encapsulate and destroy cells infected by antigens, viruses, bacteria etc..

Canaanites such as the Amalakites and the Mycenaean Greeks were given over to very depraved lifestyles such as fornication,necrophilia, bestiality, coprophillia, rape, homosexuality, lesbianism, incest,, pedophilia, and human sacrifices. Thus it is more than likely that all the beast and children were slaughtered to prevent the spread of not only deadly behavior, but STDs. Lev 18:03-26.The Hebrews and other peoples of the Exodus were the immune system of God's creation and emerged from that immune cell known as the Ark, which inhabited that cleansing Flood--that great apoptosis which removed the malignant killers of the trees and megafauna
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Was there a Canaanite explosion? WTF?

What's that about the pre-Cambrian tango again? (I do know that it lasted 7/8 of the Dancing With the Starstuff competition.)

Lenny! Where the eff are you? (S/he mentioned Buddhism, after all.)
Posted by: David Holland on Nov. 03 2011,19:59

Forastero,
I'm curious. To most of us the Cambrian is a period of time. To you it seems to be something different but I'm not sure what. I think, from some of what you have said, that you are referring to a single fossil bed. Could you explain what Cambrian means when you use the term?

By the way Darwin died long before the Vendian fossils were discovered. Not sure how he could have written about them.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 03 2011,20:17

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,19:40)
He cuts and pastes real gud.

Interestingly, he didn't take out the footnote numbers.

You do realize that copying someone else's work without attribution is immoral and potentially illegal depending on the age of the quote?

BTW: you copied it from here: < http://www.harunyahya.com/disaste....s03.php >

Now why can't you just make a simple link to things you cut and paste.

We're asking for your own words here so that we can be sure you understand the concepts.  sigh..

Just out of curiosity, did you read the quote you posted?

I found this interesting


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In polyphenic development, hormones control a switch between alternative developmental pathways so that individuals with identical genotypes can develop dramatically different phenotypes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Did you miss the word that I bolded?  Again, you are simply describing known functions.  Crocodile sex is determined by the temperature at which the eggs incubate.  So what?

That DOES NOT mean that if I keep a crocodile cooler, then it will switch to a female.  It doesn't mean that if I inject estrogen into a male human, that I will get a female human.

I think we may have a difference of opinion about what PHENOTYPE means.

That's why I keep asking you to define the words that you use.  It's not my fault that you don't understand these concepts.

BTW: Copying and pasting (as shown above) does not mean you understand a concept.  

Your specific claim is "The endocrine system can change an organisms phenotype."  This is not development, this is not metamorphasis.  This is a very specific claim.  Do you continue to maintain that this claim is correct?

If so, then please provide evidence where an organisms endocrine system caused a phenotypic change.  If not, then we can stop worrying about.

BTW: Still haven't answered your questions, even after I answered yours.  This seems to indicate an aversion to legitimate discussion and the back and forth of ideas.

Oh, BTW: I already provided you with a series of papers regarding the evolutionary history of the ursids.  If you read those articles I presented you will see one article on the biochemical changes among species, although I'm sure OM would enjoy schooling you on the subject.

Still waiting...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I right in my own words you ask for outside evidence. If I copy and paste outside evidence you claim that its not what I think it is.  No wonder you constantly project goal pole shifting and cut off your own science to save your face.

Btw, I copied and pasted Darwin's racism stuff from a whole bunch of sites. Oh and while you are suing me for plagiarism, I'll counter with your slander but I win because copy rights dont apply when it comes to non-profit, educational teaching. Your welcome

Btw 2, every "good" scientist knows that development  a lifelong process of acquiring and learning and also includes parental effects of the previous generations. Anyway what is your point? The article is clearly about natal and post natal endocrine influenced polyphenisms.

Btw 3, practice what you preach and put in your own words your so called mutated Ursidae
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 03 2011,21:12

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,19:24)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2011,18:32)
Color me curious... how would "digging out" Fedonkin's book help you with the fact that you claimed Charles Darwin wrote something that he did not write?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its a extremely cited book and contains the original source of course
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is no "original source" of a Darwin quote as you asserted. Darwin's collected writings are available online and searchable, and he never said what you claimed he said. Let me restore what you cut, just so we are clear about what you falsely claimed:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2011,21:24

1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory.  Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'.  The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying.

Copy and pasting is not understanding.  I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about.  It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution.  Look at the title of this forum.  There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here.  You don't think that they do know something about evolution.

I don't have to project or goal post shift.  I know what I'm talking about.  And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it.

Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway.  That's a sign of intellectual cowardice.  You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours.  I did.  The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered.  You have not even begun to answer mine.

2) So it's OK to steal someone else's words if it's from multiple sites?  Got it thanks.

Slander (to quote the Spaniard "I don't think it means what you think it means") a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report.  I have not slandered you.  You are using someone else's words without attribution.

As I said (I guess you don't read gud either) that it is unethical or immoral (I forget which I used) and potentially illegal.  It's unethical because you are posting someone else's words as if they were your own.  You are not giving someone else credit for the work they have done.

You really think copyright doesn't apply in those cases sometimes?!?!?  Why are all creationists rules lawyers... oh yeah, the are used to finding justifications for ignoring the rules of their holy book.

3) The article is about metmorphosis.  Insects have a 'natal'  really?  

I'll remind you AGAIN.  You claimed "The endocrine system can change an organisms phenotype".  I want an example.  You are posting articles on metamorphosis.  Plus, the traits in this article all polyphenic.  You won't get an an argument that the expression of these traits can change by the environment. We see it all the time.  But that is NOT what you claimed.  You said that "endocrine system can change an organisms phenotype".  I want an example. And I want to know that you understand what you said and why what you said is wrong.  You keep pointing out things that have nothing to do with what your claim was.  If you abandon that claim, fine.  Then say so.  We still agree on all the other stuff.

Learning???!?!?!  So, are you claiming that the endocrine system can change what I've learned too?  If you aren't, then I can't imagine why you brought it up.  

Parental effects?  Like what?  MY mom came to visit this week, does this mean I'll suddenly have a widow's peak when I didn't before?  

3)  What mutated ursids?  I stated that you were confused about the concepts you were talking about.  This is true.  Your initial claim was to have a species mutate into a different ORDER.  I explained to you why this is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible.

If you didn't understand it, then I suggest you ask for clarification... just like I have been asking you for clarification for almost a month and not getting anything.  Unlike you, I will answer requests for clarification.

BTW: Those were all my own words.  You can put that into any search engine you like and (except for the cites) will not find that text anywhere else on the internet.  Your claims are therefore refuted.

Do you understand the difference between requiring an artidactyl to mutate into a carnivore and the evolutionary history of an order?

Do you want the entire mutational difference between that last common ancestor of polar bears and pandas and every mutation that led to the modern forms?  Well, I can't do it.  No one can.  No one will ever be able to.  It's an impossible request.

That doesn't change the simple fact that both pandas and polar bears are ursids, carnivores, vertebrates, and animals.  That doesn't change the fact that the DNA in pandas is more similar to polar bears than it is to cats, dogs or other carnivores.  That bear DNA is more similar to other carnivores than it is to artidactyls or cetaceans.  That bear DNA is more similar to other vertebrates than it is to fruit flies or beetles.

Can your notions do better?  Fine, use ID or creationism principles and determine the correct nested hierarchy of carnivores.  Explain what your results are and how you go them.  Then we'll apply the results to an unknown and see what we get.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2011,22:05

I've been thinking about this and here's analogy that may be useful.

My claim (in regards to the ursid thing) is that the the original Chrysler K-platform developed, over time with small changes, into the Dodge Aries, the Plymouth Reliant, the Chrysler Lebaron.  Further modification resulted in the Chrysler Lebaron convertible and the turbo-charged LeBaron.  Further modification on another line led from the Aries to the Dodge 400 and 600.  A derivative of the original platform resulted in the original Chrysler minivans.  This is very much how evolution played out over time. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_K_platform)

Interestingly, the Lebaron, Lebaron convertible, Aries, and 400s were often sold in the same dealerships at the same time.

forastero is asking that, through successive modifications, we turn a Lebaron into a CH-53 Sea Stallion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CH-53_Sea_Stallion).

Does that help you understand the difference in what you are asking for and why your original requirement makes no sense?
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 03 2011,22:52

-----------
Even if the activity of the endocrine system affects development at that point, so what?

If the endocrine system itself evolved, then any phenotypic traits affected by it would have evolved via the DNA that guided the endocrine system itself.

Therefore that argument isn't against the basic principles, it's merely against one particular detail.

-----------
As for the estimated number of atoms in the known universe (representing the 118 known elements, or some subset thereof) - what's that got to do with anything? So what if the odds of getting one particular combination of enzymes is low? The presence of life (or of a particular species) doesn't depend on getting exactly that combination; it depends on getting a combination that works. And a lot of that working depends on the enzymes reacting with each other, doesn't it? So if the organism depends on enzyme A reacting with enzyme B, all it really depends on is having an A and a B that react with each other.

-----------
In evolutionary terms "fitness" refers to reproductive success. That doesn't make those with "fitness" more right than the others, it merely notes that they were more successful at producing descendants. Describing the results of this, and making predictions of which groups will be more successful in the future, at the expense of the less successful, does not imply approval or endorsement of that result. Expecting a result and approving of it are not the same thing.

-----------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In contrast to what? What would constitute an incomplete state?

-----------
Re "given enough time"
When the number of differences in the DNA of two species is X, and the average rate of persistent DNA change for each is R, then a first approximation of "enough time" since their common ancestor would be somewhere in the neighborhood of (1/2)X/R. (The (1/2) is because both of them have been evolving since that divergence. I almost forgot that detail.)

-----------

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 03 2011,22:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When did Darwin die?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Obvious punchline to that:

Were You There?

-----------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
describe the Cambrian explosion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


KA-BOOM!

Next question? :p

-----------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm curious. To most of us the Cambrian is a period of time. To you it seems to be something different but I'm not sure what.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good question!

Next question?

Henry
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 03 2011,23:02

which one of you guys is fourasstero again?
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 03 2011,23:37

The drawback to using the word "carnivore" as both a description of eating habits and the name of a specific taxon is that even people who don't mean to can confuse the two meanings.
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 04 2011,00:27

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2011,21:12)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,19:24)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 03 2011,18:32)
Color me curious... how would "digging out" Fedonkin's book help you with the fact that you claimed Charles Darwin wrote something that he did not write?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its a extremely cited book and contains the original source of course
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is no "original source" of a Darwin quote as you asserted. Darwin's collected writings are available online and searchable, and he never said what you claimed he said. Let me restore what you cut, just so we are clear about what you falsely claimed:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I too am curious about this.  You seem to miss the point, forastero (not surprisingly).  You have claimed the above is verbatim what Darwin said.  It has been pointed out to you that this is untrue and the reasoning given.  You have failed to make a counter argument.  Why is this.

To be clear, Darwin died before any of the terms you claim he used where extent.  Why do yo claim this?  Related point:  why then should anyone take anything you say seriously?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 04 2011,00:47

crackle...

ahem

IS THIS THING ON oh shit thats loud.  ok hold my cigarette alright.  please .  goddamit.  ok here

<reads from crumpled paper, thin spidery handwriting>

"Forasstero, why should we care about your opinion of darwin, or bacterial endocrine systems, or the giant Pre-Cambrian of 5397 BC, or whether Hitler was just gay evilutionism or also devil Buddha tantric gay evilutionism with extra hate jesus in a leather crotchless lab coat? "

<drinks sip of water, begins again>

"What makes your opinion, about how many demons Buddha could give the rusty trombone while neither the flag nor the wind blows, any more interesting or valid than say the opinion of the guy who fucks my hairdresser's boyfriend?"

<yawns, looks at watch>

"Seriously, more rock to Bach via a divinely trimmed cock, please.  No one is interested in your opinions fabrications misrepresentations, spoonerist malapropping portmanteau and flagellating liar for jesus routine, instead ,dance for us you little muppet"

<spits in corner, kicks piano player, throws a fifty cent piece at fourasstero, turns on heel and exits in visceral disgust>
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 04 2011,01:35

Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59)
Forastero,
I'm curious. To most of us the Cambrian is a period of time. To you it seems to be something different but I'm not sure what. I think, from some of what you have said, that you are referring to a single fossil bed. Could you explain what Cambrian means when you use the term?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We cant even get relatively recent Egyptian or Mesoamerican chronologies right but the high priests of academia somehow miraculously explain everything under the sun during some so called millions of years of volcanic, tectonic, glacial, and flood activity? Btw, millions of years that it would take for all of their so mutations to actually create new critters.

The fossil record shows that every so called era had an explosion of diverse life, a major extinction event, an ice age, and fossils laid down in water 99.9 % of the time. In accord to Occam's razor, most of these gargantuan cataclysms should represent just one event. On the other hand, circular reasoning has scientists dating fossils by their geologic layers and dating layers by their index fossils but they should be labeling these layers as eco zones.

Ecosystems from the arctic to the tropics all have community organization where mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, aquatic organisms etc. partition themselves in accord to the resources that they can best adapt to. So its logical that mammals and dinosaurs probably inhabited different niches too.  Likewise, the fossil record preserves paleoecosystems that indicate this same community organization and resource partitioning. For example, the Burgess shale of the Canadian Rockies consists of marine life but go a few miles north or are south in these same mountains and you will find dinosaur or mammal fossils. On the other hand, major fossil mammal sites are often in the same vicinity as major dinosaur sites in parts of Canada, Montana, Wyoming, China, Argentina etc.. Scientists often claim geologic shuffling via tectonic activity, flood etc..
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 04 2011,01:47

Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59)
By the way Darwin died long before the Vendian fossils were discovered. Not sure how he could have written about them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not surprised that he would write it though because he wrote in his origins a great deal on the “sudden appearances” in the Cambrian and the so called “primordial” layer beneath the Cambrian. I am thinking the word Vendian was emphasized in brackets but I will soon find out precisely where this quote is originally coming from.  

The  rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century by a creationist,[6] Buckland, W. (1841). Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural Theology

"the sudden manner in which several groups of species first appear in our European formations, the entire absence , as at present known, of formations rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian strata, are all undoubtedly of the most serious nature.” P 349 Origin 6th edition

and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7] Darwin, C (1859). On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. London: Murray. pp. 315–316

Darwin wrote, "the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great," yet he expressed hope that such fossils would be found, noting that "only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy."


On the sudden Appearance of Groups of allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata. In The Origin
Darwin writes: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which many species in several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. Most of the arguments which have convinced me that all the existing species of the same group are descended from a single progenitor, apply with nearly equal force to the earliest known species. For instance, it cannot be doubted that all the Silurian trilobites are descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal. Some of the most ancient Silurian animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, &c., do not differ much from living species; and it cannot on our theory be supposed, that these old species were the progenitors of all the species belonging to the same groups which have subsequently appeared, for they are not in any degree intermediate in character. Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that, before the lowest Silurian or Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures…”
< http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 04 2011,02:05

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 03 2011,22:52)
-----------
Even if the activity of the endocrine system affects development at that point, so what?

If the endocrine system itself evolved, then any phenotypic traits affected by it would have evolved via the DNA that guided the endocrine system itself.

Therefore that argument isn't against the basic principles, it's merely against one particular detail.

-----------
As for the estimated number of atoms in the known universe (representing the 118 known elements, or some subset thereof) - what's that got to do with anything? So what if the odds of getting one particular combination of enzymes is low? The presence of life (or of a particular species) doesn't depend on getting exactly that combination; it depends on getting a combination that works. And a lot of that working depends on the enzymes reacting with each other, doesn't it? So if the organism depends on enzyme A reacting with enzyme B, all it really depends on is having an A and a B that react with each other.

-----------
In evolutionary terms "fitness" refers to reproductive success. That doesn't make those with "fitness" more right than the others, it merely notes that they were more successful at producing descendants. Describing the results of this, and making predictions of which groups will be more successful in the future, at the expense of the less successful, does not imply approval or endorsement of that result. Expecting a result and approving of it are not the same thing.

-----------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(forastero @ Nov. 02 2011,22:49)
Charles Darwin once said " We do not know the ancestors of the Vendian faunas well, and like the Cambrian biota it appeared suddenly in a "complete state" .

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In contrast to what? What would constitute an incomplete state?

-----------
Re "given enough time"
When the number of differences in the DNA of two species is X, and the average rate of persistent DNA change for each is R, then a first approximation of "enough time" since their common ancestor would be somewhere in the neighborhood of (1/2)X/R. (The (1/2) is because both of them have been evolving since that divergence. I almost forgot that detail.)

-----------

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


concerning biological mechanisms, the evidence that these mechanism need to be complete on arrival is tremendously better than his assertion that biological mechanisms sprang from random nothingness. But I will let Professor Behe deal with that one. < http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007...._t.html >
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 04 2011,02:11

The fossil record shows that every so called era had an explosion of diverse life, a major extinction event, an ice age, and fossils laid down in water 99.9 % of the time. In accord to Occam's razor, most of these gargantuan cataclysms should represent just one event.

Oops, in this quote from a few posts above, I meant to say  one era and not one event
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 04 2011,02:51

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,21:24)
1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory.  Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'.  The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying.

Copy and pasting is not understanding.  I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about.  It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution.  Look at the title of this forum.  There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here.  You don't think that they do know something about evolution.

I don't have to project or goal post shift.  I know what I'm talking about.  And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it.

Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway.  That's a sign of intellectual cowardice.  You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours.  I did.  The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered.  You have not even begun to answer mine.

2) So it's OK to steal someone else's words if it's from multiple sites?  Got it thanks.

Slander (to quote the Spaniard "I don't think it means what you think it means") a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report.  I have not slandered you.  You are using someone else's words without attribution.

As I said (I guess you don't read gud either) that it is unethical or immoral (I forget which I used) and potentially illegal.  It's unethical because you are posting someone else's words as if they were your own.  You are not giving someone else credit for the work they have done.

You really think copyright doesn't apply in those cases sometimes?!?!?  Why are all creationists rules lawyers... oh yeah, the are used to finding justifications for ignoring the rules of their holy book.

3) The article is about metmorphosis.  Insects have a 'natal'  really?  

I'll remind you AGAIN.  You claimed "The endocrine system can change an organisms phenotype".  I want an example.  You are posting articles on metamorphosis.  Plus, the traits in this article all polyphenic.  You won't get an an argument that the expression of these traits can change by the environment. We see it all the time.  But that is NOT what you claimed.  You said that "endocrine system can change an organisms phenotype".  I want an example. And I want to know that you understand what you said and why what you said is wrong.  You keep pointing out things that have nothing to do with what your claim was.  If you abandon that claim, fine.  Then say so.  We still agree on all the other stuff.

Learning???!?!?!  So, are you claiming that the endocrine system can change what I've learned too?  If you aren't, then I can't imagine why you brought it up.  

Parental effects?  Like what?  MY mom came to visit this week, does this mean I'll suddenly have a widow's peak when I didn't before?  

3)  What mutated ursids?  I stated that you were confused about the concepts you were talking about.  This is true.  Your initial claim was to have a species mutate into a different ORDER.  I explained to you why this is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible.

If you didn't understand it, then I suggest you ask for clarification... just like I have been asking you for clarification for almost a month and not getting anything.  Unlike you, I will answer requests for clarification.

BTW: Those were all my own words.  You can put that into any search engine you like and (except for the cites) will not find that text anywhere else on the internet.  Your claims are therefore refuted.

Do you understand the difference between requiring an artidactyl to mutate into a carnivore and the evolutionary history of an order?

Do you want the entire mutational difference between that last common ancestor of polar bears and pandas and every mutation that led to the modern forms?  Well, I can't do it.  No one can.  No one will ever be able to.  It's an impossible request.

That doesn't change the simple fact that both pandas and polar bears are ursids, carnivores, vertebrates, and animals.  That doesn't change the fact that the DNA in pandas is more similar to polar bears than it is to cats, dogs or other carnivores.  That bear DNA is more similar to other carnivores than it is to artidactyls or cetaceans.  That bear DNA is more similar to other vertebrates than it is to fruit flies or beetles.

Can your notions do better?  Fine, use ID or creationism principles and determine the correct nested hierarchy of carnivores.  Explain what your results are and how you go them.  Then we'll apply the results to an unknown and see what we get.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um again, I copied and pasted just a few times but you still seem to be basing your arguments on your own dramatization and obviously only reading the smug ad homenims, which reduces to narcissist cronyism .

So here is one more appropriate cut and paste

Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, a perceived threat to a narcissist’s self-esteem or self-worth. It is believed that narcissists have two layers of rage. The first layer of rage can be thought of as a constant anger (towards someone else), and the second layer being a self-aimed wrath. Primitive ego-defenses include, projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defense mechanisms. Also, devaluation and projective identification are seen as borderline defenses. Projection is attributing your own repressed thoughts to someone else. 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 .
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 04 2011,03:01

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,21:24)
1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory.  Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'.  The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying.

Copy and pasting is not understanding.  I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about.  It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution.  Look at the title of this forum.  There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here.  You don't think that they do know something about evolution.

I don't have to project or goal post shift.  I know what I'm talking about.  And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it.

Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway.  That's a sign of intellectual cowardice.  You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours.  I did.  The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered.  You have not even begun to answer mine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Case in point. Instead of all the double standard drama, please tell us in your so called layman's terms the mechanics behind primordial soup to grizzly bears to Panda and Polar bear
Posted by: Amadan on Nov. 04 2011,04:10

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2011,05:02)
which one of you guys is fourasstero again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(Stands up)

I am Tardacus!
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Nov. 04 2011,04:31

Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 04 2011,10:10)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2011,05:02)
which one of you guys is fourasstero again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(Stands up)

I am Tardacus!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No! I am Tardacus!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2011,07:01

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,03:01)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,21:24)
1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory.  Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'.  The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying.

Copy and pasting is not understanding.  I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about.  It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution.  Look at the title of this forum.  There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here.  You don't think that they do know something about evolution.

I don't have to project or goal post shift.  I know what I'm talking about.  And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it.

Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway.  That's a sign of intellectual cowardice.  You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours.  I did.  The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered.  You have not even begun to answer mine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Case in point. Instead of all the double standard drama, please tell us in your so called layman's terms the mechanics behind primordial soup to grizzly bears to Panda and Polar bear
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you can't be bothered to read what I write, then I guess there's not much point.  (Much like the earlier question. I've already answered you.  If you don't like the answer or don't understand it, that is not my problem.)

BTW: You do know that Behe accepts common descent right?
Posted by: rossum on Nov. 04 2011,07:07

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 03 2011,19:53)
Wow! You you cut off your own scriptures to save your face.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You ignorance of the nature of the Tripitaka and its contents is manifest.  No Buddhist in the world accepts all of Buddhist scripture.  The Tripitaka is a collection.  Imagine that Christian scripture, in addition to the the Bible also contained the works of Arius, Nestorius, John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin and Joseph Smith.  Nobody accepts all of that.  Buddhists use the parts of the Tripitaka that they personally find useful, and ignore the other parts.  Again, I will remind you that it is unwise to assume that Buddhism approaches things in the same way as Christianity.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Bottom line is that Buddhism references Messianic prophecy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Messiah is a Jewish concept, not a Buddhist one.  The Maitreya Buddha is not a Messiah.  Prophecies of the Maitreya have no connection to Jewish prophecies of the Messiah.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The phenotypic plasticity of epigentiic immunity (also referred to as the biological arms race) is another way of explaining the Hebrew war against the Canaanites.. This magnificently designed system sends out macrophages (myocytes, monocytes etc..) to encapsulate and destroy cells infected by antigens, viruses, bacteria etc..

Canaanites such as the Amalakites and the Mycenaean Greeks were given over to very depraved lifestyles such as fornication,necrophilia, bestiality, coprophillia, rape, homosexuality, lesbianism, incest,, pedophilia, and human sacrifices. Thus it is more than likely that all the beast and children were slaughtered to prevent the spread of not only deadly behavior, but STDs. Lev 18:03-26.The Hebrews and other peoples of the Exodus were the immune system of God's creation and emerged from that immune cell known as the Ark, which inhabited that cleansing Flood--that great apoptosis which removed the malignant killers of the trees and megafauna
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is it just me, or is this meaningless word-salad?  forastero makes more sense when he is copying from Wikipedia.

rossum
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2011,07:10

Here's another question for your list of ones you won't answer.

Why do you require impossible evidence for science (i.e. evidence that no actual science requires and all scientists acknowledge that doesn't exist) and not require the same level of evidence for your own position.

You haven't even told us your position, though it sounds vaguely YEC.  Would you be willing to argue with someone who is a ID supporter but says that the designer is not God and the Bible has nothing to do with design?

Would you be willing to subject your notions to the level of scrutiny that you are giving to science?

If 'no' to any of the above, why?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 04 2011,09:24

his position?  for fuck's sake that is obvious
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 04 2011,10:06

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,01:35)
Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59)
Forastero,
I'm curious. To most of us the Cambrian is a period of time. To you it seems to be something different but I'm not sure what. I think, from some of what you have said, that you are referring to a single fossil bed. Could you explain what Cambrian means when you use the term?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We cant even get relatively recent Egyptian or Mesoamerican chronologies right but the high priests of academia somehow miraculously explain everything under the sun during some so called millions of years of volcanic, tectonic, glacial, and flood activity? Btw, millions of years that it would take for all of their so mutations to actually create new critters.

The fossil record shows that every so called era had an explosion of diverse life, a major extinction event, an ice age, and fossils laid down in water 99.9 % of the time. In accord to Occam's razor, most of these gargantuan cataclysms should represent just one event. On the other hand, circular reasoning has scientists dating fossils by their geologic layers and dating layers by their index fossils but they should be labeling these layers as eco zones.

Ecosystems from the arctic to the tropics all have community organization where mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, aquatic organisms etc. partition themselves in accord to the resources that they can best adapt to. So its logical that mammals and dinosaurs probably inhabited different niches too.  Likewise, the fossil record preserves paleoecosystems that indicate this same community organization and resource partitioning. For example, the Burgess shale of the Canadian Rockies consists of marine life but go a few miles north or are south in these same mountains and you will find dinosaur or mammal fossils. On the other hand, major fossil mammal sites are often in the same vicinity as major dinosaur sites in parts of Canada, Montana, Wyoming, China, Argentina etc.. Scientists often claim geologic shuffling via tectonic activity, flood etc..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry, did you answer the question?  I'll make it simpler for you: multiple choice.

Q. Do you believe the Cambrian is a period of time?

a) yes
b) no

I realize that you don't actually want to be pinned down on anything because you have no idea what you're talking about.  But answering questions that have simple answers with rambling monologues does you no favors (I know, you think it does.  You're wrong.).

So, how about it?  Yes?  Or no?
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 04 2011,10:10

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 04 2011,04:31)
Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 04 2011,10:10)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2011,05:02)
which one of you guys is fourasstero again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(Stands up)

I am Tardacus!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No! I am Tardacus!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No!  I am...oh, shit, no; he's Tardacus!
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 04 2011,10:30



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But answering questions that have simple answers with rambling monologues does you no favors
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You noticed that, too?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 04 2011,10:44

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,07:01)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,03:01)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,21:24)
1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory.  Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'.  The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying.

Copy and pasting is not understanding.  I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about.  It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution.  Look at the title of this forum.  There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here.  You don't think that they do know something about evolution.

I don't have to project or goal post shift.  I know what I'm talking about.  And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it.

Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway.  That's a sign of intellectual cowardice.  You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours.  I did.  The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered.  You have not even begun to answer mine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Case in point. Instead of all the double standard drama, please tell us in your so called layman's terms the mechanics behind primordial soup to grizzly bears to Panda and Polar bear
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you can't be bothered to read what I write, then I guess there's not much point.  (Much like the earlier question. I've already answered you.  If you don't like the answer or don't understand it, that is not my problem.)

BTW: You do know that Behe accepts common descent right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What pages did you discuss any mutation or natural selection mechanism? Where did you discuss in your own words any bear and cat evolution? It seems to me that you only offered a few links. You incorrectly touched upon domestic selextion, epigenetics, phenotypic plasticity,  the Big Bang, and so called uniformitarianism.  You also admitted to only just now "learning" about about epigenetic plasticity but any real or sane biologist would know that epigenetic plasticity is common knowledge

I have provided this thread both a good example and a good definition of the Endocrine system's selection of polyphenisms but you simply kicked against the goad
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 04 2011,11:09

If the endocrine system itself evolved, then any traits affected by it would have evolved via the DNA that guided the endocrine system itself.

Therefore that argument isn't against the basic principles of evolution, it's merely against one particular detail.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 04 2011,11:17

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,07:10)
Here's another question for your list of ones you won't answer.

Why do you require impossible evidence for science (i.e. evidence that no actual science requires and all scientists acknowledge that doesn't exist) and not require the same level of evidence for your own position.

You haven't even told us your position, though it sounds vaguely YEC.  Would you be willing to argue with someone who is a ID supporter but says that the designer is not God and the Bible has nothing to do with design?

Would you be willing to subject your notions to the level of scrutiny that you are giving to science?

If 'no' to any of the above, why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you admit no scientist can't even explain the notorious   prokaryote to eukaryote and ape to man dichotomies?

I debate theistic evolutionists, Buddhist, alien seed mongers, creationists, and IDers and learn from them too.  Some are much more right than others and it often comes down to the individual. Things like DNA and soft tissue in fossils, thermodynamics etc indicate a young earth to me. I believe the Bible. I believe life was created but adapts slightly by epigentics and not random mutations.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 04 2011,11:18

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 04 2011,10:10)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 04 2011,04:31)
Quote (Amadan @ Nov. 04 2011,10:10)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 04 2011,05:02)
which one of you guys is fourasstero again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(Stands up)

I am Tardacus!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No! I am Tardacus!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No!  I am...oh, shit, no; he's Tardacus!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2011,11:18

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,10:44)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,07:01)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,03:01)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,21:24)
1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory.  Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'.  The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying.

Copy and pasting is not understanding.  I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about.  It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution.  Look at the title of this forum.  There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here.  You don't think that they do know something about evolution.

I don't have to project or goal post shift.  I know what I'm talking about.  And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it.

Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway.  That's a sign of intellectual cowardice.  You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours.  I did.  The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered.  You have not even begun to answer mine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Case in point. Instead of all the double standard drama, please tell us in your so called layman's terms the mechanics behind primordial soup to grizzly bears to Panda and Polar bear
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you can't be bothered to read what I write, then I guess there's not much point.  (Much like the earlier question. I've already answered you.  If you don't like the answer or don't understand it, that is not my problem.)

BTW: You do know that Behe accepts common descent right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What pages did you discuss any mutation or natural selection mechanism? Where did you discuss in your own words any bear and cat evolution? It seems to me that you only offered a few links. You incorrectly touched upon domestic selextion, epigenetics, phenotypic plasticity,  the Big Bang, and so called uniformitarianism.  You also admitted to only just now "learning" about about epigenetic plasticity but any real or sane biologist would know that epigenetic plasticity is common knowledge

I have provided this thread both a good example and a good definition of the Endocrine system's selection of polyphenisms but you simply kicked against the goad
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude, listen closely.  You said

"The endocrine system selects phenotypes."

You didn't say anything about polyphentic systems, which I think we all agree with. You didn't say anything about hormonal control of metamorphasis... again which no one disagrees with.

There is a big difference between the endocrine system selecting any/all phenotypes, which is what you said and what your final claim that hormones can sometimes affect the development in polyphenic genes.  YOU didn't mention epigenetic plasticity until being hounded on it for several pages.

Do you understand now?  I am being difficult, because you aren't being precise.  You made a claim and still have not backed it up.

Either drop the claim and use one of the changed claims you used between then and now or provide evidence of (for example) some hormone changing someone's phenotype to give them a widow's peak.

THIS is why I wanted you to define your words.  We could have avoided all this idiot crap and cleared this up 5 pages ago if you had just defined "Phenotype" and noted that you include polyphenic genes in this definition.  

See how easy this is?  

Now, what's really very interesting, is that at no point have I disagreed with anything you have said.  Although I'm disagreeing now because I'd like you to quote my reference to The Big Bang and uniformitarianism.  Because I don't think you can do it in the context we have here.

Do you want the mechanisms for mutation... ok here you go:
hydrolysis
modification of bases
cross-link DNA
dimerization
frameshift caused by insertion of non-base chemicals
transposon and viral insertions
uncorrected replication error
UV radiation
chemical induced (bisulfite for example)
etc. etc.

Those are the mechanisms for mutation (well, some of them).

Do you want the actual mutations that resulted in the diversity of bears?  Well, again, there is a paper that discusses some of it.  But < as I said here > there is no way that we will ever know the exact mutational and genetic history of anything.  The past is past, we can compare and see how different things are and, from that, infer the distance (in time) of the last common ancestor.  We can compare morphology and determine relationships that way.

By demanding this level of detail, you have just shown that you are not interested in the science of what's going on here.

Tell us, forastero, what is your position?

BTW: You are still not discussing in good faith.  I have repeatedly answered your questions.  In two cases, I have answered your questions and you did not read them.  It is now your turn.

BTW2: Just out of curiosity... what was your entire point with the "endocrine system selects phenotypes" thing?  If you think that somehow discredits evolution, then I think you are sadly mistaken.

BTW3: Learning.  Yes, I do that.  It's cool to learn.  However, I will learn from sources that I consider trustworthy.  If you said the sky was blue, I'd go check.  And I'm not a biologist.  But that's OK.

You still owe me that list of questions and a quote from me in this thread where I used the Big Bang and uniformitarianism as discussion points.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 04 2011,11:22

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 04 2011,11:09)
If the endocrine system itself evolved, then any traits affected by it would have evolved via the DNA that guided the endocrine system itself.

Therefore that argument isn't against the basic principles of evolution, it's merely against one particular detail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where is your evidence?

The fact that it works the same way in all Eukaryotes indicates that it first appeared in its complete state simultaneously in all those critters and hasnt mutated.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 04 2011,11:27

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 04 2011,10:06)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,01:35)
Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59)
Forastero,
I'm curious. To most of us the Cambrian is a period of time. To you it seems to be something different but I'm not sure what. I think, from some of what you have said, that you are referring to a single fossil bed. Could you explain what Cambrian means when you use the term?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We cant even get relatively recent Egyptian or Mesoamerican chronologies right but the high priests of academia somehow miraculously explain everything under the sun during some so called millions of years of volcanic, tectonic, glacial, and flood activity? Btw, millions of years that it would take for all of their so mutations to actually create new critters.

The fossil record shows that every so called era had an explosion of diverse life, a major extinction event, an ice age, and fossils laid down in water 99.9 % of the time. In accord to Occam's razor, most of these gargantuan cataclysms should represent just one event. On the other hand, circular reasoning has scientists dating fossils by their geologic layers and dating layers by their index fossils but they should be labeling these layers as eco zones.

Ecosystems from the arctic to the tropics all have community organization where mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, aquatic organisms etc. partition themselves in accord to the resources that they can best adapt to. So its logical that mammals and dinosaurs probably inhabited different niches too.  Likewise, the fossil record preserves paleoecosystems that indicate this same community organization and resource partitioning. For example, the Burgess shale of the Canadian Rockies consists of marine life but go a few miles north or are south in these same mountains and you will find dinosaur or mammal fossils. On the other hand, major fossil mammal sites are often in the same vicinity as major dinosaur sites in parts of Canada, Montana, Wyoming, China, Argentina etc.. Scientists often claim geologic shuffling via tectonic activity, flood etc..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry, did you answer the question?  I'll make it simpler for you: multiple choice.

Q. Do you believe the Cambrian is a period of time?

a) yes
b) no

I realize that you don't actually want to be pinned down on anything because you have no idea what you're talking about.  But answering questions that have simple answers with rambling monologues does you no favors (I know, you think it does.  You're wrong.).

So, how about it?  Yes?  Or no?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I clearly indicated that it was not a specific era but rather a eco zone
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 04 2011,11:39

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,11:18)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,10:44)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,07:01)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,03:01)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2011,21:24)
1) asking for your own words AND outside evidence are NOT mutually contradictory.  Visit my blog or this group called 'researchblogging'.  The whole point is to translate technical speech into more common speech so that laymen can understand what we're saying.

Copy and pasting is not understanding.  I do not believe you have sufficient understanding of any of the concepts you are talking about.  It's obvious to everyone here that you don't understand evolution.  Look at the title of this forum.  There are some people who have been arguing against creationism for 3 decades here.  You don't think that they do know something about evolution.

I don't have to project or goal post shift.  I know what I'm talking about.  And I thoroughly enjoy pointing out all the times you do it.

Further, I'll point out AGAIN, that you are not arguing in good faith anyway.  That's a sign of intellectual cowardice.  You stated on this board that the reason you didn't answer my questions was that I didn't answer yours.  I did.  The fact that you don't like and don't understand the answer is not my problem, the question was answered.  You have not even begun to answer mine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Case in point. Instead of all the double standard drama, please tell us in your so called layman's terms the mechanics behind primordial soup to grizzly bears to Panda and Polar bear
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you can't be bothered to read what I write, then I guess there's not much point.  (Much like the earlier question. I've already answered you.  If you don't like the answer or don't understand it, that is not my problem.)

BTW: You do know that Behe accepts common descent right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What pages did you discuss any mutation or natural selection mechanism? Where did you discuss in your own words any bear and cat evolution? It seems to me that you only offered a few links. You incorrectly touched upon domestic selextion, epigenetics, phenotypic plasticity,  the Big Bang, and so called uniformitarianism.  You also admitted to only just now "learning" about about epigenetic plasticity but any real or sane biologist would know that epigenetic plasticity is common knowledge

I have provided this thread both a good example and a good definition of the Endocrine system's selection of polyphenisms but you simply kicked against the goad
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dude, listen closely.  You said

"The endocrine system selects phenotypes."

You didn't say anything about polyphentic systems, which I think we all agree with. You didn't say anything about hormonal control of metamorphasis... again which no one disagrees with.

There is a big difference between the endocrine system selecting any/all phenotypes, which is what you said and what your final claim that hormones can sometimes affect the development in polyphenic genes.  YOU didn't mention epigenetic plasticity until being hounded on it for several pages.

Do you understand now?  I am being difficult, because you aren't being precise.  You made a claim and still have not backed it up.

Either drop the claim and use one of the changed claims you used between then and now or provide evidence of (for example) some hormone changing someone's phenotype to give them a widow's peak.

THIS is why I wanted you to define your words.  We could have avoided all this idiot crap and cleared this up 5 pages ago if you had just defined "Phenotype" and noted that you include polyphenic genes in this definition.  

See how easy this is?  

Now, what's really very interesting, is that at no point have I disagreed with anything you have said.  Although I'm disagreeing now because I'd like you to quote my reference to The Big Bang and uniformitarianism.  Because I don't think you can do it in the context we have here.

Do you want the mechanisms for mutation... ok here you go:
hydrolysis
modification of bases
cross-link DNA
dimerization
frameshift caused by insertion of non-base chemicals
transposon and viral insertions
uncorrected replication error
UV radiation
chemical induced (bisulfite for example)
etc. etc.

Those are the mechanisms for mutation (well, some of them).

Do you want the actual mutations that resulted in the diversity of bears?  Well, again, there is a paper that discusses some of it.  But < as I said here > there is no way that we will ever know the exact mutational and genetic history of anything.  The past is past, we can compare and see how different things are and, from that, infer the distance (in time) of the last common ancestor.  We can compare morphology and determine relationships that way.

By demanding this level of detail, you have just shown that you are not interested in the science of what's going on here.

Tell us, forastero, what is your position?

BTW: You are still not discussing in good faith.  I have repeatedly answered your questions.  In two cases, I have answered your questions and you did not read them.  It is now your turn.

BTW2: Just out of curiosity... what was your entire point with the "endocrine system selects phenotypes" thing?  If you think that somehow discredits evolution, then I think you are sadly mistaken.

BTW3: Learning.  Yes, I do that.  It's cool to learn.  However, I will learn from sources that I consider trustworthy.  If you said the sky was blue, I'd go check.  And I'm not a biologist.  But that's OK.

You still owe me that list of questions and a quote from me in this thread where I used the Big Bang and uniformitarianism as discussion points.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First of all, I have been teaching you all along that polyphenisms are the the various phenotypes of a a single genome but you just kick against the goad. Secondly, you are confusing polyphenisms with polymorphisms.

Development is a lifelong process and hormones are constantly involved

I never asked you to name all the so called mythological mutation I simply asked to explain how they work and how they are are selected by natural selection in bears or cats or what whatever you want. Do apes if that suits you better

I have been very clear on my position
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 04 2011,11:41

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,01:47)
 
Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59)
By the way Darwin died long before the Vendian fossils were discovered. Not sure how he could have written about them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not surprised that he would write it though because he wrote in his origins a great deal on the “sudden appearances” in the Cambrian and the so called “primordial” layer beneath the Cambrian. I am thinking the word Vendian was emphasized in brackets but I will soon find out precisely where this quote is originally coming from.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley has already told you where it comes from - twice!

Please see a doctor about what is causing your cognition difficulties.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 04 2011,11:44

Oh and again,development not only a life long process but generational process since we acquire so much that are parents experience
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 04 2011,11:53

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 04 2011,11:41)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,01:47)
 
Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59)
By the way Darwin died long before the Vendian fossils were discovered. Not sure how he could have written about them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not surprised that he would write it though because he wrote in his origins a great deal on the “sudden appearances” in the Cambrian and the so called “primordial” layer beneath the Cambrian. I am thinking the word Vendian was emphasized in brackets but I will soon find out precisely where this quote is originally coming from.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley has already told you where it comes from - twice!

Please see a doctor about what is causing your cognition difficulties.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see that you left out the following from my quote--the part that makes argument mute

The  rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century by a creationist,[6] Buckland, W. (1841). Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural Theology

and Charles Darwin saw it as one of the main objections that could be made against his theory of evolution by natural selection.[7] Darwin, C (1859). On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. London: Murray. pp. 315–316

"the sudden manner in which several groups of species first appear in our European formations, the entire absence , as at present known, of formations rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian strata, are all undoubtedly of the most serious nature.” P 349 Origin 6th edition

Darwin wrote, "the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great," yet he expressed hope that such fossils would be found, noting that "only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy."


On the sudden Appearance of Groups of allied Species in the lowest known Fossiliferous Strata. In The Origin of a species
Darwin writes: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which many species in several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. Most of the arguments which have convinced me that all the existing species of the same group are descended from a single progenitor, apply with nearly equal force to the earliest known species. For instance, it cannot be doubted that all the Silurian trilobites are descended from some one crustacean, which must have lived long before the Silurian age, and which probably differed greatly from any known animal. Some of the most ancient Silurian animals, as the Nautilus, Lingula, &c., do not differ much from living species; and it cannot on our theory be supposed, that these old species were the progenitors of all the species belonging to the same groups which have subsequently appeared, for they are not in any degree intermediate in character. Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that, before the lowest Silurian or Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures…”
< http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 04 2011,11:59

Oh and I believe that Wesley has actually tried to grab that straw at least four time now.

But the above Darwin quote cleans all the feverish foam from his furry little face
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 04 2011,12:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...the part that makes argument mute

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



We can only hope.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 04 2011,12:09

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,11:53)
The  rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century by a creationist,[6] Buckland, W. (1841). Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural Theology
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please define "sudden". Please define "rapid".

A day?
A year?

What?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 04 2011,12:18

Ogre

polyphenisms are the the various phenotypes of a single genoTYPE to be more precise
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 04 2011,12:24

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,09:59)
Oh and I believe that Wesley has actually tried to grab that straw at least four time now.

But the above Darwin quote cleans all the feverish foam from his furry little face
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus once said; "Forastero?  What a lying sack of shit.  He's going to hell for sure."
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 04 2011,12:27

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 04 2011,12:24)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,09:59)
Oh and I believe that Wesley has actually tried to grab that straw at least four time now.

But the above Darwin quote cleans all the feverish foam from his furry little face
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus once said; "Forastero?  What a lying sack of shit.  He's going to hell for sure."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong again.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 04 2011,12:35

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,10:27)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 04 2011,12:24)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,09:59)
Oh and I believe that Wesley has actually tried to grab that straw at least four time now.

But the above Darwin quote cleans all the feverish foam from his furry little face
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Jesus once said; "Forastero?  What a lying sack of shit.  He's going to hell for sure."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why?  I'm only doing what you did with Darwin - making up a quote about something long after his death.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2011,12:40

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,11:39)
First of all, I have been teaching you all along that polyphenisms are the the various phenotypes of a a single genome but you just kick against the goad. Secondly, you are confusing polyphenisms with polymorphisms.

Development is a lifelong process and hormones are constantly involved

I never asked you to name all the so called mythological mutation I simply asked to explain how they work and how they are are selected by natural selection in bears or cats or what whatever you want. Do apes if that suits you better

I have been very clear on my position
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have not been teaching all along about polyphenisms.  If you think you have, then you are a very poor teacher.  Let me explain:

Teaching is not just lecturing, it also involves checking for understanding.  Since, it seemed to you that I did not understand you (not to mention that I asked for clarification no less than five times), you should have explained better.  You did not.

You did not talk about epigentics until late into the conversation.  You did not talk about polyphenisms EVER until I brought it up.  

So, you are expecting me to read your mind maybe?

Fine I'm confusing polymorphism and polyphenism.  maybe if YOU HAD ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS a week ago, we could have avoided all this.

I see now that you are taking a slightly different view of phenotype than I do.  Again, if you had answered my question a week ago, then we wouldn't be at this point.

BTW: What was the entire point about this discussion again?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I never asked you to name all the so called mythological mutation I simply asked to explain how they work and how they are are selected by natural selection in bears or cats or what whatever you want. Do apes if that suits you better
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you really not understand how natural selection works?  Do you really not understand how mutation works?

I want to understand something here, so I'm asking a question.  You said

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
name all the so called mythological mutation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you saying that the mutational effects I listed don't exist?

OK, here goes.  A random event occurs in a gamete in a female lion.  That gamete is fertilized, with several others and develops into a cub.  That cub is born in a litter with several other cubs.

The random event is that a particular base in the DNA of the cub has been replaced with a different base.  This was not caught by the zygotes repair mechanisms.  Unfortunately, this change will now be reflected in every single cell of the cub, including the sex cells.

Even more unfortunately, the protein that no longer functions correctly was directly responsible for the elongation of limbs in the cub.  The cub was born with very short limbs... almost non-existant.

Since the cub can barely move and certainly cannot fight it's littermates to get at milk, it starves to death in short order.

It was selected against.  In the wild world, having short limbs is deadly.  The cub could not fight, run, chase, or keep up with the pride.  That mutation appeared and then exited the gene pool of the population quite rapidly.  This is called evolution.

Interestingly, a similar mutation has appeared in domestic cats and has thrived, probably in no small reason that humans find the short legged cats 'cute'.  So, in a different environment, the mutation has been selected FOR and now there is a large community of Munchkin breeders.  BTW: the mutation appears to have occurred several times throughout history, lending credence to the suggestion that it is a simple mutation somewhere with a particular gene.  The first documented case was in 1964 and it was rediscovered and began being bred for in 1983.

Now, over time, this mutation and other like it could result in a huge diversity of domestic felines... much like the massive diversity seen in domestic dogs, much of the diversity of which can be traced through human history.

For example, rotties were first known in ancient Rome.  The Rhodesian Ridgeback can be traced to the 17th century in South Africa.  

I'm willing to submit that the species we know of as dogs (Canis familaris) are instead a cline of very closely related species.  This depends on how you define species of course, but a dachshund and a Great Dane cannot mate naturally and/or could not carry hybrid offspring to birth.  In this way, they are, in terms of mating, physically separated.

If all of the medium sized dogs were to disappear, there could be a very valid argument made for the separation of toy dogs and large working dogs into two different species.

You have not been clear on your position... as obviously I am still asking about it.

Are you, as seems to be implied, a Young Earth Creationist?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 04 2011,13:13

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,11:59)
Oh and I believe that Wesley has actually tried to grab that straw at least four time now.

But the above Darwin quote cleans all the feverish foam from his furry little face
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not sure what that's supposed to mean. Wit is actually comprehensible.

In any case, the proffered quotes from Darwin don't contain what was represented as a quote before, which is not surprising since Darwin did not say what Forastero claimed he said.

Yes, you are on the hook for actually getting quotes correct, not just finding vaguely similar content. It's a matter of scholarship, something that goes toward intellectual honesty if fulfilled and the other direction if not.
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 04 2011,13:19

Maybe it's the lack of morning tea but I'm finding this induhvidual hilarious.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 04 2011,13:34

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,10:22)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 04 2011,11:09)
If the endocrine system itself evolved, then any traits affected by it would have evolved via the DNA that guided the endocrine system itself.

Therefore that argument isn't against the basic principles of evolution, it's merely against one particular detail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where is your evidence?

The fact that it works the same way in all Eukaryotes indicates that it first appeared in its complete state simultaneously in all those critters and hasnt mutated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evidence for WHAT?

I didn't make a claim there; I pointed out that your argument doesn't do what I presume you're wanting it to.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 04 2011,13:35

As for the Cambrian:

It IS an era.

It is NOT an eco zone.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 04 2011,14:23

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,12:53)
I see that you left out the following from my quote--the part that makes argument mute
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just love it when some genius starts to talk about points being "mute."

They're often naturally voicetrous people who become flustrated when no one will listen to them.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 04 2011,14:26

       
Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59)
Forastero,
I'm curious. To most of us the Cambrian is a period of time. To you it seems to be something different but I'm not sure what. I think, from some of what you have said, that you are referring to a single fossil bed. Could you explain what Cambrian means when you use the term?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



{Blah, blah blah by forastero snipped}

 
Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59)
I'm sorry, did you answer the question?  I'll make it simpler for you: multiple choice.

Q. Do you believe the Cambrian is a period of time?

a) yes
b) no

I realize that you don't actually want to be pinned down on anything because you have no idea what you're talking about.  But answering questions that have simple answers with rambling monologues does you no favors (I know, you think it does.  You're wrong.).

So, how about it?  Yes?  Or no?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,01:35)

I clearly indicated that it was not a specific era but rather a eco zone
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What kind of "eco zone"?  Is it one that exists today?  If so, I can go to the Cambrian without a time machine - cool!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2011,14:43

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,21:42)
blah blah blah...

so you admit that you can't explain it in your own words?

Oh, and you are wrong... most scientists do NOT describe the beginning of the universe as a huge explosion.  Protons didn't even exist for the first second of the universe (I may have been wrong earlier... I didn't bother to look it up... now I have).

Atoms didn't exist for the first 3 minutes of the universe.  Therefore it couldn't have been CAUSED by a thermonuclear explosion... nuclei didn't exist.

Nucelosynthesis (i.e. the formation of nuclei) only occurred between 3-20 minutes AFTER the Big Bang began.  Nucleosynthesis results in lots of hydrogen and a little helium being formed through thermonuclear fusion.  Fusion STOPS after 20 minutes into the process because the universe has cooled and the density has lowered to the point where fusion can no longer occur.

Now, here is a list of cosmology texts and reference texts.  Find one, just a single one that states (as you do) the CAUSE of the Big Bang is a real chemical or nuclear explosion. < http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright....ib.html >

Again, if you don't know these simple facts and how they came to be regarded as facts, then you are poorly educated and really need to learn some basic cosmology before even beginning to argue it.

Again, I'm willing to teach you, but you have not indicated that you are willing to learn.

Just to be perfectly clear you are arguing against and ANALOGY that is usually used in elementary schools.  One that is known to be incorrect, but because of its absolute simplicity is good for those students who have not reached the sophistication of 7th or 8th grade.

Now, let's talk about the Cambrian 'explosion'.  I'm not sure what you're complain actually is, but being as you scoffed at my 50 million years (are you a young Earth creationist?  really?) let's discuss... no, let me explain the facts of basic geology to you, then you can go cry.

Here's an article that gives some of the radiometric dates for the Cambrian time frame.
Jago, J.B.; Haines, P.W. (1998). "Recent radiometric dating of some Cambrian rocks in southern Australia: relevance to the Cambrian time scale". Revista Española de Paleontología: 115–22.

Now, the Cambrian is the Geologic period that begins the Paleozoic and ends with the Ordivician.  Before you get all huffy, you need to understand that the geologic period was named well before the discovery of the massive radiation of life was known during it.

The precise date of the Cambrian will probably be officially declared to be 542 million years ago (plus or minus about 300,000) based on three major lines of evidence.  The first is called the carbon anomaly.  It is a sudden drop in the presence of carbon-13 in the rock layers.  Interestingly, this coincides with the second reason which is that of a notable horizon of volcanic ash that is calculated to the same age.  Which further explains the third line of reasoning which is the mass extinction of pre-cambrian fossils.
(Gradstein, F.M.; Ogg, J.G., Smith, A.G., others (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press.)

The Ordovician is marked at 488.3 mya+- 1.7 million years based on another major extinction event.  Coincidentally, it also matches well with the spread of trilobites, conodonts, and graptolites, which, do to their uniqueness and variations over time are fantastic index fossils.

Since 50 million years isn't precise enough for you, then I'll go with 53.7 million years plus or minus 2 million years.  I realize that the level of error is longer than humans have existed, but we're looking backwards half a billion years.

Is that sufficiently precise?

I will note that you have STILL failed to provide any evidence or support ANY of your assertions and still believe that evidence is based on quotes.  

I have provide some of the materials I used, feel free to look them up and if you find a mistake, do let the nobel prize committee know.  I would suggest you discuss it here before claiming such a mistake though, it would be really embarrassing to declare someone in error because you don't understand the difference between laptons, haydrons, and baryons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yes, I did talk about the Big Bang... in terms of an explosion.  Had nothing to do with genetics, the endocrine system, or phenotypes.  BTW: Do you want to state it correctly or shall we just call that one a draw?  You learned something (hopefully) and I learned something.

How about forastero?  You still think something exploded (either a chemical, nuclear, or sub-nuclear high speed exothermic reaction) to cause the Big Bang?

Oh yeah, the rest of my quote describes the Cambrian.  Curiously, there several references to peer-reviewed work in there.  And I think, IIRC, that those are my words, explaining the definition of the Cambrian Era.  When I type "Cambrian" into google, I get lots of geologic era links, several fossil links, a school district in West Jose, a granite countertop company, but no biomes... I wonder why that is?

BTW: As I recall, you brought up uniformitarianism and made the claim that radiometric dating is invalid because of... what?  and your evidence is...?
Posted by: Texas Teach on Nov. 04 2011,16:36

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 04 2011,14:23)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,12:53)
I see that you left out the following from my quote--the part that makes argument mute
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just love it when some genius starts to talk about points being "mute."

They're often naturally voicetrous people who become flustrated when no one will listen to them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe he means a < "moo point" >?
Posted by: Texas Teach on Nov. 04 2011,16:45

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 04 2011,14:26)
         
Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59)
Forastero,
I'm curious. To most of us the Cambrian is a period of time. To you it seems to be something different but I'm not sure what. I think, from some of what you have said, that you are referring to a single fossil bed. Could you explain what Cambrian means when you use the term?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



{Blah, blah blah by forastero snipped}

   
Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 03 2011,19:59)
I'm sorry, did you answer the question?  I'll make it simpler for you: multiple choice.

Q. Do you believe the Cambrian is a period of time?

a) yes
b) no

I realize that you don't actually want to be pinned down on anything because you have no idea what you're talking about.  But answering questions that have simple answers with rambling monologues does you no favors (I know, you think it does.  You're wrong.).

So, how about it?  Yes?  Or no?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,01:35)

I clearly indicated that it was not a specific era but rather a eco zone
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What kind of "eco zone"?  Is it one that exists today?  If so, I can go to the Cambrian without a time machine - cool!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The way it reads to me, forastero thinks all the different geological eras happened at the same time and just represent different parts of the Earth with different ecologies.  He seems to think there was only one batch of diversification, one ice age, (one Ye Olde Flud?), etc.   I'm not sure how he plans to get around the fact that some of those "eco zones" are stacked on top of each other despite being contemporary.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 04 2011,16:50

oh he "gets around that" by saying really hilarious stupid shit about occams razor
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 04 2011,17:06

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,02:17)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,07:10)
Here's another question for your list of ones you won't answer.

Why do you require impossible evidence for science (i.e. evidence that no actual science requires and all scientists acknowledge that doesn't exist) and not require the same level of evidence for your own position.

You haven't even told us your position, though it sounds vaguely YEC.  Would you be willing to argue with someone who is a ID supporter but says that the designer is not God and the Bible has nothing to do with design?

Would you be willing to subject your notions to the level of scrutiny that you are giving to science?

If 'no' to any of the above, why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you admit no scientist can't even explain the notorious   prokaryote to eukaryote and ape to man dichotomies?

I debate theistic evolutionists, Buddhist, alien seed mongers, creationists, and IDers and learn from them too.  Some are much more right than others and it often comes down to the individual. Things like DNA and soft tissue in fossils, thermodynamics etc indicate a young earth to me. I believe the Bible. I believe life was created but adapts slightly by epigentics and not random mutations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well the Bible has over 100 references to a flat earth. Also it is pretty clear that the sky is solid and heaven sits above. Why can this be ignored but everything else must be taken literally? The truth is that YECs are cafeteria christians just like everybody else and that the anti science and the rest are just cultural badges to use against perceived enemies. People are seeing through this and are leaving christianity in droves.

You give the game away when you say debate. In a debate you ignore 90% of what the opposition says and hit on the 10%. For people who seek the truth will worry about the other 90%, Ask any of the ex-YECs on this board.

A young earth can't explain:

limestone caves nearby that are caused by a number of very slow processes.


Why the grand canyon meanders.

Fossils are laid out in the order that supports common descent, not in body size or how fast they can out run the flood.

Sediments are obviously laid down by many different processes.

No dinosaurs with modern mammals. Different habitats doesn't wash as Fossils of dinosaurs are found all over the world in many different habitats.

etc. etc.

If I was a YEC and after the truth, these kind of things would keep me up at night. If I was a cultural warrior full of bluster, I'd just ignore it and search for my next debating point.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2011,18:22

Young Earth Creationists cannot explain this.

The Tarim Basin in Western China is a river canyon (not a flood canyon, but a river canyon.  Yes there is a difference.  If you can't tell them apart, then you have no business even attempting this discussion.) that is carved in limestone. < http://home.entouch.net/dmd....ons.htm >

Interestingly, the rock the river carved is Ordivician (that's an era, not a type of rock).

Now, what's really interesting is this canyon, carved in limestone (which is really hard and takes water a long time to dissolve (especially if you think that there was no rain before the flood) is buried under 17,000 feet of additional sediment.

Now, let's consider something here.  Since, according to the YECs I've read, all sediment is from the Flood.  Then the Flood waters would have to have been a minimum of 17,000 feet deep.  That's assuming that the Flood waters contained so much sediment that the flood was effectively the consistency of a chocolate malt.  Considering that coral reefs older than 6000 years exist and all the fish had to survive (believe I know Noah didn't have a multi-million gallon saltwater aquarium on the ark), then the flood couldn't have been that thick with sediment (of course it couldn't have been more than about 50 feet deep or the corals still would have died, but we'll leave that aside for now.)

So we're looking at flood waters at least 100,000 feet deep just to get the minimum amount of sediment in this canyon.

Where did the water come from, where did it go, and where did the sediment come from.  I expect peer-reviewed research that supports your contentions.

Go ahead, ask me for references to support anything of the above I've said.
Posted by: David Holland on Nov. 04 2011,20:27

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,01:35)

We cant even get relatively recent Egyptian or Mesoamerican chronologies right but the high priests of academia somehow miraculously explain everything under the sun during some so called millions of years of volcanic, tectonic, glacial, and flood activity? Btw, millions of years that it would take for all of their so mutations to actually create new critters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you explain isochron dating and tell me why it is wrong?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fossil record shows that every so called era had an explosion of diverse life, a major extinction event, an ice age, and fossils laid down in water 99.9 % of the time. In accord to Occam's razor, most of these gargantuan cataclysms should represent just one event. On the other hand, circular reasoning has scientists dating fossils by their geologic layers and dating layers by their index fossils but they should be labeling these layers as eco zones.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would like more information on why you think every geological era had an ice age. Where can I find the evidence for the Mesozoic ice age?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ecosystems from the arctic to the tropics all have community organization where mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, aquatic organisms etc. partition themselves in accord to the resources that they can best adapt to. So its logical that mammals and dinosaurs probably inhabited different niches too.  Likewise, the fossil record preserves paleoecosystems that indicate this same community organization and resource partitioning. For example, the Burgess shale of the Canadian Rockies consists of marine life but go a few miles north or are south in these same mountains and you will find dinosaur or mammal fossils. On the other hand, major fossil mammal sites are often in the same vicinity as major dinosaur sites in parts of Canada, Montana, Wyoming, China, Argentina etc.. Scientists often claim geologic shuffling via tectonic activity, flood etc..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would be interested in learning how different ecological zones came to be stacked vertically. When you say mammals and dinosaur fossils are found in the same vicinity do you mean the same strata? Because if they are not found in the same layer it doesn't support your postion at all.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,00:47

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,12:40)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,11:39)
First of all, I have been teaching you all along that polyphenisms are the the various phenotypes of a a single genome but you just kick against the goad. Secondly, you are confusing polyphenisms with polymorphisms.

Development is a lifelong process and hormones are constantly involved

I never asked you to name all the so called mythological mutation I simply asked to explain how they work and how they are are selected by natural selection in bears or cats or what whatever you want. Do apes if that suits you better

I have been very clear on my position
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have not been teaching all along about polyphenisms.  If you think you have, then you are a very poor teacher.  Let me explain:

Teaching is not just lecturing, it also involves checking for understanding.  Since, it seemed to you that I did not understand you (not to mention that I asked for clarification no less than five times), you should have explained better.  You did not.

You did not talk about epigentics until late into the conversation.  You did not talk about polyphenisms EVER until I brought it up.  

So, you are expecting me to read your mind maybe?

Fine I'm confusing polymorphism and polyphenism.  maybe if YOU HAD ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS a week ago, we could have avoided all this.

I see now that you are taking a slightly different view of phenotype than I do.  Again, if you had answered my question a week ago, then we wouldn't be at this point.

BTW: What was the entire point about this discussion again?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I never asked you to name all the so called mythological mutation I simply asked to explain how they work and how they are are selected by natural selection in bears or cats or what whatever you want. Do apes if that suits you better
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you really not understand how natural selection works?  Do you really not understand how mutation works?

I want to understand something here, so I'm asking a question.  You said  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
name all the so called mythological mutation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Are you saying that the mutational effects I listed don't exist?

OK, here goes.  A random event occurs in a gamete in a female lion.  That gamete is fertilized, with several others and develops into a cub.  That cub is born in a litter with several other cubs.

The random event is that a particular base in the DNA of the cub has been replaced with a different base.  This was not caught by the zygotes repair mechanisms.  Unfortunately, this change will now be reflected in every single cell of the cub, including the sex cells.

Even more unfortunately, the protein that no longer functions correctly was directly responsible for the elongation of limbs in the cub.  The cub was born with very short limbs... almost non-existant.

Since the cub can barely move and certainly cannot fight it's littermates to get at milk, it starves to death in short order.

It was selected against.  In the wild world, having short limbs is deadly.  The cub could not fight, run, chase, or keep up with the pride.  That mutation appeared and then exited the gene pool of the population quite rapidly.  This is called evolution.

Interestingly, a similar mutation has appeared in domestic cats and has thrived, probably in no small reason that humans find the short legged cats 'cute'.  So, in a different environment, the mutation has been selected FOR and now there is a large community of Munchkin breeders.  BTW: the mutation appears to have occurred several times throughout history, lending credence to the suggestion that it is a simple mutation somewhere with a particular gene.  The first documented case was in 1964 and it was rediscovered and began being bred for in 1983.

Now, over time, this mutation and other like it could result in a huge diversity of domestic felines... much like the massive diversity seen in domestic dogs, much of the diversity of which can be traced through human history.

For example, rotties were first known in ancient Rome.  The Rhodesian Ridgeback can be traced to the 17th century in South Africa.  

I'm willing to submit that the species we know of as dogs (Canis familaris) are instead a cline of very closely related species.  This depends on how you define species of course, but a dachshund and a Great Dane cannot mate naturally and/or could not carry hybrid offspring to birth.  In this way, they are, in terms of mating, physically separated.

If all of the medium sized dogs were to disappear, there could be a very valid argument made for the separation of toy dogs and large working dogs into two different species.

You have not been clear on your position... as obviously I am still asking about it.

Are you, as seems to be implied, a Young Earth Creationist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well your last two posts simply reveal you reduced to
Hitleresque Big Lie propaganda(The bigger the lie and the more its repeated, the more its believed).

Actually I have mentioned the term polyphenisms a few times and several pages back. On the other hand, how can you not understand that the selection of ancestral phenotypes is the same as selecting polyphenisms and where did you ever mention them?

How were you hounding me about epigenetics when it was you who tried to ridicule me after my informing you how its controlled mostly by the endocrine system?

My view hasnt changed at all. The major polyphenisms are selected directly and non-directly by the interaction of hormones and neurons.

Again, the entire point of the discussion is that yo have everything backwards. That is mother nature doesnt select mutations that just happen to appear at just the right time and place. What happens is that stress hormones select phenotypes in accord to time and place.

I never said that mutations didnt exist. Just go back to the hairless dogs that we covered at the very beginning of our discussion. Like your short legged cats, its a mutation that is non-viable when homozygous. Likewise not all ridgebacks have ridges and there is a  connection to crippling dermiods and homozygoes ridges. I will inform you though that short legs isnt always a negative with cats. It could actually help them clime or scurry through burrows. Likewise not all DNA sequence changes are random. Some are Bauplan by design and a few are directional.

Like I told you before, you are just picking out mutations that dont really make the dog in its essence but rather usually detract from it in  one way or another. More importantly they arnt even leading to new species, let alone whole new classes. Btw, I have witnessed tiny dogs eagerly mounting much bigger dogs that were were lying down; and yes, a great dane can produce tiny puppies.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,00:59

Oh Ogre, I almost forgot. Your cat and dog examples are a poor representation of brown bear to polar bear and dichotomies because the white fur of polar bears is more than likely an epigenetic regulation of melanin and hollowing.

The Panda is a whole different beast and I dont believe that its chromosomes fused with a grizzly bear but its sesmoid thumb morphology is more than likely epigenetic as it is in so many other beast

And thanks. Its great that you step up to the plate
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,01:15

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 04 2011,13:34)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,10:22)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 04 2011,11:09)
If the endocrine system itself evolved, then any traits affected by it would have evolved via the DNA that guided the endocrine system itself.

Therefore that argument isn't against the basic principles of evolution, it's merely against one particular detail.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where is your evidence?

The fact that it works the same way in all Eukaryotes indicates that it first appeared in its complete state simultaneously in all those critters and hasnt mutated.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Evidence for WHAT?

I didn't make a claim there; I pointed out that your argument doesn't do what I presume you're wanting it to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your claiming a big If with no umph
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,03:10

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,14:43)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,21:42)
blah blah blah...

so you admit that you can't explain it in your own words?

Oh, and you are wrong... most scientists do NOT describe the beginning of the universe as a huge explosion.  Protons didn't even exist for the first second of the universe (I may have been wrong earlier... I didn't bother to look it up... now I have).

Atoms didn't exist for the first 3 minutes of the universe.  Therefore it couldn't have been CAUSED by a thermonuclear explosion... nuclei didn't exist.

Nucelosynthesis (i.e. the formation of nuclei) only occurred between 3-20 minutes AFTER the Big Bang began.  Nucleosynthesis results in lots of hydrogen and a little helium being formed through thermonuclear fusion.  Fusion STOPS after 20 minutes into the process because the universe has cooled and the density has lowered to the point where fusion can no longer occur.

Now, here is a list of cosmology texts and reference texts.  Find one, just a single one that states (as you do) the CAUSE of the Big Bang is a real chemical or nuclear explosion. < http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright....ib.html >

Again, if you don't know these simple facts and how they came to be regarded as facts, then you are poorly educated and really need to learn some basic cosmology before even beginning to argue it.

Again, I'm willing to teach you, but you have not indicated that you are willing to learn.

Just to be perfectly clear you are arguing against and ANALOGY that is usually used in elementary schools.  One that is known to be incorrect, but because of its absolute simplicity is good for those students who have not reached the sophistication of 7th or 8th grade.

Now, let's talk about the Cambrian 'explosion'.  I'm not sure what you're complain actually is, but being as you scoffed at my 50 million years (are you a young Earth creationist?  really?) let's discuss... no, let me explain the facts of basic geology to you, then you can go cry.

Here's an article that gives some of the radiometric dates for the Cambrian time frame.
Jago, J.B.; Haines, P.W. (1998). "Recent radiometric dating of some Cambrian rocks in southern Australia: relevance to the Cambrian time scale". Revista Española de Paleontología: 115–22.

Now, the Cambrian is the Geologic period that begins the Paleozoic and ends with the Ordivician.  Before you get all huffy, you need to understand that the geologic period was named well before the discovery of the massive radiation of life was known during it.

The precise date of the Cambrian will probably be officially declared to be 542 million years ago (plus or minus about 300,000) based on three major lines of evidence.  The first is called the carbon anomaly.  It is a sudden drop in the presence of carbon-13 in the rock layers.  Interestingly, this coincides with the second reason which is that of a notable horizon of volcanic ash that is calculated to the same age.  Which further explains the third line of reasoning which is the mass extinction of pre-cambrian fossils.
(Gradstein, F.M.; Ogg, J.G., Smith, A.G., others (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press.)

The Ordovician is marked at 488.3 mya+- 1.7 million years based on another major extinction event.  Coincidentally, it also matches well with the spread of trilobites, conodonts, and graptolites, which, do to their uniqueness and variations over time are fantastic index fossils.

Since 50 million years isn't precise enough for you, then I'll go with 53.7 million years plus or minus 2 million years.  I realize that the level of error is longer than humans have existed, but we're looking backwards half a billion years.

Is that sufficiently precise?

I will note that you have STILL failed to provide any evidence or support ANY of your assertions and still believe that evidence is based on quotes.  

I have provide some of the materials I used, feel free to look them up and if you find a mistake, do let the nobel prize committee know.  I would suggest you discuss it here before claiming such a mistake though, it would be really embarrassing to declare someone in error because you don't understand the difference between laptons, haydrons, and baryons.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yes, I did talk about the Big Bang... in terms of an explosion.  Had nothing to do with genetics, the endocrine system, or phenotypes.  BTW: Do you want to state it correctly or shall we just call that one a draw?  You learned something (hopefully) and I learned something.

How about forastero?  You still think something exploded (either a chemical, nuclear, or sub-nuclear high speed exothermic reaction) to cause the Big Bang?

Oh yeah, the rest of my quote describes the Cambrian.  Curiously, there several references to peer-reviewed work in there.  And I think, IIRC, that those are my words, explaining the definition of the Cambrian Era.  When I type "Cambrian" into google, I get lots of geologic era links, several fossil links, a school district in West Jose, a granite countertop company, but no biomes... I wonder why that is?

BTW: As I recall, you brought up uniformitarianism and made the claim that radiometric dating is invalid because of... what?  and your evidence is...?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, you had had looked into some billions of years-old crystal ball chronologies  when I said:

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

Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......

I gave you many quotes from top scientists who claimed "explosion" including from your own links. Plus the priest that developed the Big Bang theory said it was an explosion and Einstein concurred that the priest was right.

Again for the fifth time, try googling Cambrian and benthic

What geologic columns? You can find stratigraphic relatively  in recent terms but uplifting destroys, mixes and or contaminates very ancient stratigraphy. Even Cenozoic sites are a jumbled hodgepodge dated by preconceived ideas.  Even De Vince knew that. Just look at a geological map. Its a mosaic spread out horizontally in all kinds of crazy looking mosaics based on index fossils, which were supposedly originally dated by depth. This is circular reasoning. Plus, we are finding living index fossils all the time
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,03:18

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 04 2011,12:09)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,11:53)
The  rapid appearance of fossils in the “Primordial Strata” was noted as early as the mid 19th century by a creationist,[6] Buckland, W. (1841). Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural Theology
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please define "sudden". Please define "rapid".

A day?
A year?

What?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


faster than a modified monkey on roidz and caffeine can type his ABCs
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 05 2011,03:29

A real live one



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet the fundamental forces remain the same. To account for a young universe the change in speed of light would have fried adam and all other life. Strange how on one hand all of the universal constants have been perfectly designed for life but then they can be warped to suit a young universe.

As for the rest, wow they are certainly making creationists stupider - Fruit and vegetables have less minerals? Not if you shop at the right places.

Star migration is slowing?? WTF
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,03:50

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 04 2011,17:06)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,02:17)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2011,07:10)
Here's another question for your list of ones you won't answer.

Why do you require impossible evidence for science (i.e. evidence that no actual science requires and all scientists acknowledge that doesn't exist) and not require the same level of evidence for your own position.

You haven't even told us your position, though it sounds vaguely YEC.  Would you be willing to argue with someone who is a ID supporter but says that the designer is not God and the Bible has nothing to do with design?

Would you be willing to subject your notions to the level of scrutiny that you are giving to science?

If 'no' to any of the above, why?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you admit no scientist can't even explain the notorious   prokaryote to eukaryote and ape to man dichotomies?

I debate theistic evolutionists, Buddhist, alien seed mongers, creationists, and IDers and learn from them too.  Some are much more right than others and it often comes down to the individual. Things like DNA and soft tissue in fossils, thermodynamics etc indicate a young earth to me. I believe the Bible. I believe life was created but adapts slightly by epigentics and not random mutations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well the Bible has over 100 references to a flat earth. Also it is pretty clear that the sky is solid and heaven sits above. Why can this be ignored but everything else must be taken literally? The truth is that YECs are cafeteria christians just like everybody else and that the anti science and the rest are just cultural badges to use against perceived enemies. People are seeing through this and are leaving christianity in droves.

You give the game away when you say debate. In a debate you ignore 90% of what the opposition says and hit on the 10%. For people who seek the truth will worry about the other 90%, Ask any of the ex-YECs on this board.

A young earth can't explain:

limestone caves nearby that are caused by a number of very slow processes.


Why the grand canyon meanders.

Fossils are laid out in the order that supports common descent, not in body size or how fast they can out run the flood.

Sediments are obviously laid down by many different processes.

No dinosaurs with modern mammals. Different habitats doesn't wash as Fossils of dinosaurs are found all over the world in many different habitats.

etc. etc.

If I was a YEC and after the truth, these kind of things would keep me up at night. If I was a cultural warrior full of bluster, I'd just ignore it and search for my next debating point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope no flat earth stuff in the Bible

Those so called mammal like reptiles are modern mammals

Fossil areas all over the world have mammals and dinosaurs in the same vicinity

Again, your geologic column  is faith based
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,03:57

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,03:29)
A real live one



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet the fundamental forces remain the same. To account for a young universe the change in speed of light would have fried adam and all other life. Strange how on one hand all of the universal constants have been perfectly designed for life but then they can be warped to suit a young universe.

As for the rest, wow they are certainly making creationists stupider - Fruit and vegetables have less minerals? Not if you shop at the right places.

Star migration is slowing?? WTF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


speed of light ? thats all? Anyway, the amount of light hitting the earth has definitely changed and does change a lot. Your Gould scriptures will tell you that

And Wrong

And yes
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,03:58

Dear Michael and Ogre

Mt. St. Helens and Catastrophism
by Steven A. Austin, Ph.D.
The eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington State on May 18, 1980, is certain to be remembered as one of the most significant geologic events in the United States of the 20th century. The explosion, on May 18, was initiated by an earthquake and rockslide involving one-half cubic mile of rock. As the summit and north slope slid off the volcano that morning, pressure was released inside the volcano - where super hot liquid water immediately flashed to steam. The northward-directed steam explosion released energy equivalent to 20 million tons of TNT, which toppled 150 square miles of forest in six minutes. In Spirit lake, north of the volcano, an enormous water wave, initiated by one-eighth cubic mile of rockslide debris, stripped trees from slopes as high as 850 feet above the pre-eruption water level. The total energy output, on May 18, was equivalent to 400 million tons of TNT - approximately 20,000 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs.
< http://www.nwcreation.net/mtsthel....ns.html > by Chris Ashcraft by Chris Ashcraft

the eruption at Mt. St. Helens on May 18, 1980 was an important geological event because we were able to witness and document large-scale catastrophic processes, which are otherwise extremely rare. For creation science, the event was most notable because of the rapid deposition and erosion that provided a sizable model of the type of activity likely to have taken place during the great Biblical flood of Noah. The work done at the volcano during its eruption by the creation scientist, Steven A. Austin, et. al. to document this event is a highly recommended study.
Stratified layers up to 400 feet thick formed as a result of landslides, pyroclastic flow, mudflows, etc., during the Mt. St. Helens eruption. Fine laminae from only a millimeter thick to more than a meter high formed in just a few seconds each. A deposit more than 25 feet in thickness, and containing upwards of 100 thin layers accumulated in just one day on June 12, 1980. Naturalists have long claimed that stratified layer such as those found in the geological column have accumulated over vast periods of time, and these laminates represent long season variations or annual changes. However, the Mt. St. Helens deposits have demonstrated that catastrophic processes are able to create these geological formations in a short
Perhaps the most remarkable catastrophic events to have occurred at Mt. St. Helens was the rapid erosion that was accomplished by mudflows, landslides, and waves of water. On March 19, 1982 a small eruption melted the snow that had accumulated in the crater over the winter, and a resulting mud flow eroded a canyon system up to 140 feet deep. The deepest of the canyons pictured at right has affectionately been called the little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River, and is one-fortieth the size of its namesake. The small creek that now flows through the bottom would appear to have carved this canyon over a great length of time, but this unique event has demonstrated that rapid catastrophic processes were instead responsible for this canyon. The Grand Canyon in Arizona has also been claimed for some time to have been carved gradually by the Colorado River, but it is now becoming clear this American icon is as well the result of catastrophic erosion.
Loowit Falls Canyon (pictured at right)
“Spilling from the crater, Loowit Falls reshapes the north slope of the volcano. ‘You’d expect a hardrock canyon to be thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years old,’ says Peter Frenzen, monument scientist, ‘but this was cut in less than a decade." National Geographic, May 2000, p. 121.
As a result of the volcanic eruptions, thick deposits of fine laminate accumulated that was later eroded into large canyons. Naturalists have long claimed that these features, which are common to earth's geology, were accomplished over great lengths of time. The rapid production of these formations at Mt. St. Helens provided evidence that catastrophic mechanisms, such as those ongoing during the Biblical flood, could instead be responsible.



Oh yeah and the Toutle River  meanders threw it
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 05 2011,04:15

The canyon system doesn't snake like the grand canyon.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,04:20

Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 04 2011,20:27)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 04 2011,01:35)

We cant even get relatively recent Egyptian or Mesoamerican chronologies right but the high priests of academia somehow miraculously explain everything under the sun during some so called millions of years of volcanic, tectonic, glacial, and flood activity? Btw, millions of years that it would take for all of their so mutations to actually create new critters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you explain isochron dating and tell me why it is wrong?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The fossil record shows that every so called era had an explosion of diverse life, a major extinction event, an ice age, and fossils laid down in water 99.9 % of the time. In accord to Occam's razor, most of these gargantuan cataclysms should represent just one event. On the other hand, circular reasoning has scientists dating fossils by their geologic layers and dating layers by their index fossils but they should be labeling these layers as eco zones.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would like more information on why you think every geological era had an ice age. Where can I find the evidence for the Mesozoic ice age?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ecosystems from the arctic to the tropics all have community organization where mammals, birds, reptiles, insects, aquatic organisms etc. partition themselves in accord to the resources that they can best adapt to. So its logical that mammals and dinosaurs probably inhabited different niches too.  Likewise, the fossil record preserves paleoecosystems that indicate this same community organization and resource partitioning. For example, the Burgess shale of the Canadian Rockies consists of marine life but go a few miles north or are south in these same mountains and you will find dinosaur or mammal fossils. On the other hand, major fossil mammal sites are often in the same vicinity as major dinosaur sites in parts of Canada, Montana, Wyoming, China, Argentina etc.. Scientists often claim geologic shuffling via tectonic activity, flood etc..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I would be interested in learning how different ecological zones came to be stacked vertically. When you say mammals and dinosaur fossils are found in the same vicinity do you mean the same strata? Because if they are not found in the same layer it doesn't support your postion at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just google things like Cambrian ice age or Jurassic ice age etc

Again, They are not stacked on top of each other

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

Do a study on paleoecology
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,04:22

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:15)
The canyon system doesn't snake like the grand canyon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No canyons snake the same because no giant giant forces snake the same
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,04:29

Most importantly though is that fact that all kinds of dinosaurs are found with soft tissues
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 05 2011,04:29

Flat earth ...

Isaiah 11:12  
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Proverbs 8:27-  When he prepared the heavens, I was there, When he drew a circle on the face of the deep

Isaiah 40:22-  It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it's inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Also unmoving:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

I wont even start on the firmanent and vaults of heaven
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 05 2011,04:40

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,19:22)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:15)
The canyon system doesn't snake like the grand canyon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No canyons snake the same because no giant giant forces snake the same
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly - a canyon that is created over millions of years will meander like the grand canyon


with the mt St Helens comparisions:

The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into harder materials, including well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed sediments (the Vishnu schist), plus a touch of relatively recent basalt.

The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees. The walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places.

The canyon was not entirely formed suddenly. The canyon along Toutle River has a river continuously contributing to its formation.

The streams flowing down Mount St. Helens flow at a steeper grade than the Colorado River does, allowing greater erosion.

The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. Helens. The two are not really comparable.

Edit: wrote St Helens instead of Grand Canyon
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2011,06:15

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,04:29)
Most importantly though is that fact that all kinds of dinosaurs are found with soft tissues
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Citation please.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 05 2011,07:06

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2011,21:15)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,04:29)
Most importantly though is that fact that all kinds of dinosaurs are found with soft tissues
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Citation please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Haven't they found that the soft tissue was just bacterial film?
Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 05 2011,07:12

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2011,12:15)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,04:29)
Most importantly though is that fact that all kinds of dinosaurs are found with soft tissues
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Citation please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tyrannosaurus Andrex.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 05 2011,07:37



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw, I have witnessed tiny dogs eagerly mounting much bigger dogs that were were lying down; and yes, a great dane can produce tiny puppies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



finally we see who this fucking clown is.

Ghost, welcome back.  missed you!
Posted by: Amadan on Nov. 05 2011,08:01

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 05 2011,13:12)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2011,12:15)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,04:29)
Most importantly though is that fact that all kinds of dinosaurs are found with soft tissues
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Citation please.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tyrannosaurus Andrex.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2011,08:47

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,00:47)
Well your last two posts simply reveal you reduced to
Hitleresque Big Lie propaganda(The bigger the lie and the more its repeated, the more its believed).

Actually I have mentioned the term polyphenisms a few times and several pages back. On the other hand, how can you not understand that the selection of ancestral phenotypes is the same as selecting polyphenisms and where did you ever mention them?

How were you hounding me about epigenetics when it was you who tried to ridicule me after my informing you how its controlled mostly by the endocrine system?

My view hasnt changed at all. The major polyphenisms are selected directly and non-directly by the interaction of hormones and neurons.

Again, the entire point of the discussion is that yo have everything backwards. That is mother nature doesnt select mutations that just happen to appear at just the right time and place. What happens is that stress hormones select phenotypes in accord to time and place.

I never said that mutations didnt exist. Just go back to the hairless dogs that we covered at the very beginning of our discussion. Like your short legged cats, its a mutation that is non-viable when homozygous. Likewise not all ridgebacks have ridges and there is a  connection to crippling dermiods and homozygoes ridges. I will inform you though that short legs isnt always a negative with cats. It could actually help them clime or scurry through burrows. Likewise not all DNA sequence changes are random. Some are Bauplan by design and a few are directional.

Like I told you before, you are just picking out mutations that dont really make the dog in its essence but rather usually detract from it in  one way or another. More importantly they arnt even leading to new species, let alone whole new classes. Btw, I have witnessed tiny dogs eagerly mounting much bigger dogs that were were lying down; and yes, a great dane can produce tiny puppies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll admit, I learned something about various things here.

However, you are still making wild and so-far unsupported claims.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That is mother nature doesnt select mutations that just happen to appear at just the right time and place. What happens is that stress hormones select phenotypes in accord to time and place.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But if you are NOT talking about a polyphenic gene or a poly morphic gene, then you cannot say this.

Do you maintain that EVERY gene is controlled by the endocrine system?  I think that this is the MAIN point of contention all along.  You have never said that some genes are controlled by the endocrine system, you seem to be saying that ALL are.

And so what if they are, it still doesn't mean evolution is wrong.

If so, then I'll need the peer-reviewed documention to show this.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Like I told you before, you are just picking out mutations that dont really make the dog in its essence but rather usually detract from it in  one way or another.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really, define 'detract'.  You seem to think that there is something that makes a perfect dog.  Which one is it, Dane's or Whippets?  Are all other dogs, less dogs because they have short-leg mutations that detract from dogginess?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

More importantly they arnt even leading to new species, let alone whole new classes.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've made my claim and I think it could be supported.  However, would you like a list of speciation events.

I've already explained why your need to create new classes is ridiculous and not expected of evolution.  It certainly isn't expected in one human lifetime.

But that's not important to you, just whatever you think helps your case.

So, basically, the entire discussion we've been arguing over was a complete waste of time as far as this discussion goes.

You are still making claims that have no basis in reality (that every phenotype is controlled by the endocrine system)*.

Oh and the last bit.  A female Great Dane can have very little puppies... but a female dachshund cannot have very large puppies.


_

* This sentence, which you used, is still so fraught with error that i think my confusion was understandable.  You may not see it that way, but your confirmation basis.  You are a very poor teacher.  If you had just answered the questions when I asked them, we could have avoided all this.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2011,08:54

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,00:59)
Oh Ogre, I almost forgot. Your cat and dog examples are a poor representation of brown bear to polar bear and dichotomies because the white fur of polar bears is more than likely an epigenetic regulation of melanin and hollowing.

The Panda is a whole different beast and I dont believe that its chromosomes fused with a grizzly bear but its sesmoid thumb morphology is more than likely epigenetic as it is in so many other beast

And thanks. Its great that you step up to the plate
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why?  My examples are what happens.  I'll need peer-reviewed evidence that polar bears and brown bears are actually the same species and that if you put a brown bear in the arctic it will become a polar bear.  I'll need evidence that an epigenetic change will last for 100,000 years (the time of the earliest recorded polar bear).

Please quote where I said a panda fused with a grizzly.  What I said, is that the panda maintains the entire range of traits that identify it as belonging to order carnivora.  In that way, a panda is more like a brown bear than a horse.

Please quote the evidence from a peer-reviewed study that the panda's thumb is epigenetic.

It's a damn shame that you won't step up to the plate.  You keep making claims with absolutely no supporting evidence.

I'll repeat... even if much of the changes are epigenetic and environmental (which is not the case), then it  still does not mean creationism is right and evolution is wrong.

Care to deal with the Flood geology? Or do you want to provide any evidence that I'm asking for?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2011,09:15

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,03:10)
Actually, you had had looked into some billions of years-old crystal ball chronologies  when I said:

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

Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......

I gave you many quotes from top scientists who claimed "explosion" including from your own links. Plus the priest that developed the Big Bang theory said it was an explosion and Einstein concurred that the priest was right.

Again for the fifth time, try googling Cambrian and benthic

What geologic columns? You can find stratigraphic relatively  in recent terms but uplifting destroys, mixes and or contaminates very ancient stratigraphy. Even Cenozoic sites are a jumbled hodgepodge dated by preconceived ideas.  Even De Vince knew that. Just look at a geological map. Its a mosaic spread out horizontally in all kinds of crazy looking mosaics based on index fossils, which were supposedly originally dated by depth. This is circular reasoning. Plus, we are finding living index fossils all the time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yeah here we go again.  Do you read what we write?

1) look up isochrons, explain in detail why all isochron dating methods are wrong and yet they still all converge on the same date.

2) The sun is 'dying' by known physical, chemical, and nuclear processes that are consistent with known processes.  In fact, it is also known that these processes are exactly the same as they were about 13 billion years ago... because we can see these processes in action 13 billion years ago.

3) Earth's rotation and Lunar rotations are caused by the exact same thing, a transfer of energy from the Earth to the Moon, causing the Earth to slow and the Moon to speed up, moving away from us.  This is simple, very simple, physics.  It is a known, explained process that does not mean fundamental laws are changing.

4) currents change all the time.  Major currents also change, just more slowly.  This is a known and explained process that does not indicate fundamental laws are changing.

5) Earth's internal heat is based on radiation.  When the process or radioactive decay occurs (a known process that does not indicate fundamental laws are changing) that means there is less material to warm the interior of the Earth.  

I could go on, but there is no point.

You, forastero, are confusing the fundamental laws of nature, with the natural process of entropy as energy flows are used to create work and some of that energy is lost to non-productive heat.  

There is nothing in this list that implies or indicates in any way that a fundamental law, force, or character is changing.

I have previously asked you for evidence for the latter three of these claims and you did not provide any.

Quotes!?!?!? Who cares?  An explosion is a simple explanation for people who can't understand expansion.  I'll ask you again... what exploded?  Since even sub-atomic particles and matter/anti-matter didn't exist until AFTER the big bang... what exploded?

The Cambrian was an era.  The benthic fossils that you are concerned with were FOUND in a variety of rocks that are Cambrian in age (i.e. 530 mya and 580 mya).  The reason, of course, that all the life was benthic is because a) There were no land dwelling species at the time and b) the formations that caused the majority of the fossillization were underwater landslides on continental shelves and canyons.

I don't understand why you can't understand this.

No, they are not.  The geologic column was developed and used for construction purposes well before Darwin was born.  In fact, the early (Christian) geologists could look at the fossils in a rock column and tell you what kind of rock it was and what kind of rock was above it and below it.

Interestingly, your claim here makes a mockery of entire fields of industry that are making billions of dollars per year (oil, diamonds, coal, etc).  So, since they are making money (lots of money) off what you claim to be inaccurate, I think that pretty much trumps your claims.

No, we do not find living index fossils all the time.  That's why they are index fossils because they lived for a very specific amount of time and then no more were ever found.  Like I said, oil geologists use index fossils daily.  It works.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2011,09:16

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:15)
The canyon system doesn't snake like the grand canyon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The canyon carved by Mt. St. Helen's was also carved in very loose sediment, not limestone (which, btw, is so hard that you can make giant buildings from it).
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2011,09:18

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,04:29)
Most importantly though is that fact that all kinds of dinosaurs are found with soft tissues
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Citation please.

I'll note for the record that you said that dinosaurs are found with soft tissues.. not IMPRESSIONS of soft tissues.

I'll also state that we are referring to any species that at a minimum was extinct prior to the KT boundary 65 mya.  Birds don't count here.

So, please present the evidence with a citation from peer-reviewed literature.  You also claimed 'all kinds', so I'll need at least one citation from every major family of dinosaurs.

Thanks.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2011,09:20

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,03:57)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,03:29)
A real live one

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet the fundamental forces remain the same. To account for a young universe the change in speed of light would have fried adam and all other life. Strange how on one hand all of the universal constants have been perfectly designed for life but then they can be warped to suit a young universe.

As for the rest, wow they are certainly making creationists stupider - Fruit and vegetables have less minerals? Not if you shop at the right places.

Star migration is slowing?? WTF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


speed of light ? thats all? Anyway, the amount of light hitting the earth has definitely changed and does change a lot. Your Gould scriptures will tell you that

And Wrong

And yes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Citation please for the fruits and bones thing.  I asked well over a week ago.  None yet.

The amount of light hitting the Earth has changed... duh.

This is a well known phenomena that the sun goes through cycles of lowered and increased radiative output.  It is in no way evidence for or implying that any fundamental laws of the universe are changing.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,11:35

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:29)
Flat earth ...

Isaiah 11:12  
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Proverbs 8:27-  When he prepared the heavens, I was there, When he drew a circle on the face of the deep

Isaiah 40:22-  It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it's inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Also unmoving:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

I wont even start on the firmanent and vaults of heaven
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Hebrew Bible uses poems  consistent with  the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, such as in the Enuma Elish, which described a circular earth surrounded by water above and below, as illustrated by references to the "foundations of the earth" and the "circle of the earth. In numerous passages, the bible refers to the earth as a campus in relation to night and day, boundaries and winds (easterlies, northerlies etc) so the four corners or "wings" logically means north, south, east and west. For instance Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Nebuchadnezzar was in a prophetic dream-time state and thus able to see the earth from afar and seeing the ends of the continents.  

Likewise, in  Mathew, even if Satan can see through solid earth, his best vantage point to see, accuse, and influence all of the kingdoms would logically be from a distance like a "angel of [false] light" (imagine a parabolic beam), hence the name "prince of the power of the air". This is why there are so many depiction  of ancient gods giving of conic and oblique powers

Early Church fathers like Augustine and Constantine’s tutor Lactantius believed in a spherical earth. The early Christian also often depicted symbols of Christ over the sphere of the earth or angels holding a spherical earth.

The flat earth ties to Christians was based mostly on lies by bible hating humanists like John W. Draper and Andrew Dickson White   Russell, J. B. 1997. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback, Westport, Conn.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,11:59

And here are just a few examples of dino soft tissue that leaves da cave boys in da dust

A wing membrane from a 60 ft Pterosaur < http://www.nature.com/nature....a0.html >

Mososaur soft tissue < http://www.oceansofkansas.com/mus-tyl....lo.html >

The Smoky Hill chalk of Kansas has been the source of several well preserved and nearly intact shark "mummies", < http://www.squali.com/fossili....ina.htm >

Specimen also displays several areas of soft-tissue preservation, including the cartilage that attached the shoulder girdle to the skeleton and connected the ribs at the sternum.
< http://www.paleosearch.com/kschalk....ls.html >

Ichthiosaur soft tissue < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc....1690467 >

Exceptionally well preserved pterosaur wing membrane from the Cretaceous of Brazil < http://www.nature.com/nature....a0.html >

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs
< http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs....0..871M >

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted
< http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subject....a.shtml >

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
< http://www.biology-online.org/article....us.html >
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,12:05

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:40)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,19:22)
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:15)
The canyon system doesn't snake like the grand canyon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No canyons snake the same because no giant giant forces snake the same
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly - a canyon that is created over millions of years will meander like the grand canyon


with the mt St Helens comparisions:

The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into harder materials, including well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed sediments (the Vishnu schist), plus a touch of relatively recent basalt.

The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees. The walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places.

The canyon was not entirely formed suddenly. The canyon along Toutle River has a river continuously contributing to its formation.

The streams flowing down Mount St. Helens flow at a steeper grade than the Colorado River does, allowing greater erosion.

The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. Helens. The two are not really comparable.

Edit: wrote St Helens instead of Grand Canyon
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More pseudoempiricism from you. Various anomalies at St Helens and abroad show that super chaotic cataclysm forces dont always snake the same way as you say. Some gouge out vertically some not so vertically
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 05 2011,12:08

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,01:50)
Fossil areas all over the world have mammals and dinosaurs in the same vicinity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course they do, muppet.  Mammals evolved from synapsids in the Triassic.  What's your point?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,12:15

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,08:47)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,00:47)
Well your last two posts simply reveal you reduced to
Hitleresque Big Lie propaganda(The bigger the lie and the more its repeated, the more its believed).

Actually I have mentioned the term polyphenisms a few times and several pages back. On the other hand, how can you not understand that the selection of ancestral phenotypes is the same as selecting polyphenisms and where did you ever mention them?

How were you hounding me about epigenetics when it was you who tried to ridicule me after my informing you how its controlled mostly by the endocrine system?

My view hasnt changed at all. The major polyphenisms are selected directly and non-directly by the interaction of hormones and neurons.

Again, the entire point of the discussion is that yo have everything backwards. That is mother nature doesnt select mutations that just happen to appear at just the right time and place. What happens is that stress hormones select phenotypes in accord to time and place.

I never said that mutations didnt exist. Just go back to the hairless dogs that we covered at the very beginning of our discussion. Like your short legged cats, its a mutation that is non-viable when homozygous. Likewise not all ridgebacks have ridges and there is a  connection to crippling dermiods and homozygoes ridges. I will inform you though that short legs isnt always a negative with cats. It could actually help them clime or scurry through burrows. Likewise not all DNA sequence changes are random. Some are Bauplan by design and a few are directional.

Like I told you before, you are just picking out mutations that dont really make the dog in its essence but rather usually detract from it in  one way or another. More importantly they arnt even leading to new species, let alone whole new classes. Btw, I have witnessed tiny dogs eagerly mounting much bigger dogs that were were lying down; and yes, a great dane can produce tiny puppies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll admit, I learned something about various things here.

However, you are still making wild and so-far unsupported claims.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

That is mother nature doesnt select mutations that just happen to appear at just the right time and place. What happens is that stress hormones select phenotypes in accord to time and place.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But if you are NOT talking about a polyphenic gene or a poly morphic gene, then you cannot say this.

Do you maintain that EVERY gene is controlled by the endocrine system?  I think that this is the MAIN point of contention all along.  You have never said that some genes are controlled by the endocrine system, you seem to be saying that ALL are.

And so what if they are, it still doesn't mean evolution is wrong.

If so, then I'll need the peer-reviewed documention to show this.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Like I told you before, you are just picking out mutations that dont really make the dog in its essence but rather usually detract from it in  one way or another.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Really, define 'detract'.  You seem to think that there is something that makes a perfect dog.  Which one is it, Dane's or Whippets?  Are all other dogs, less dogs because they have short-leg mutations that detract from dogginess?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

More importantly they arnt even leading to new species, let alone whole new classes.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I've made my claim and I think it could be supported.  However, would you like a list of speciation events.

I've already explained why your need to create new classes is ridiculous and not expected of evolution.  It certainly isn't expected in one human lifetime.

But that's not important to you, just whatever you think helps your case.

So, basically, the entire discussion we've been arguing over was a complete waste of time as far as this discussion goes.

You are still making claims that have no basis in reality (that every phenotype is controlled by the endocrine system)*.

Oh and the last bit.  A female Great Dane can have very little puppies... but a female dachshund cannot have very large puppies.


_

* This sentence, which you used, is still so fraught with error that i think my confusion was understandable.  You may not see it that way, but your confirmation basis.  You are a very poor teacher.  If you had just answered the questions when I asked them, we could have avoided all this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where did I indicate that I disagreed with polyphenic genes? That is what I have been teaching you about. That said, I am not a good teacher to you because you dont deserve it.

In your own words and mine, the mutations detract from their fitness inn one way or another. Short legged cats dont always have a disadvantage like you say but there are plenty of age-old organizations trying to prevent the breeding of them. There must be a reason.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 05 2011,12:19

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,09:59)
And here are just a few examples of dino soft tissue that leaves da cave boys in da dust

A wing membrane from a 60 ft Pterosaur < http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html >

Mososaur soft tissue < http://www.oceansofkansas.com/mus-tyl....lo.html >

The Smoky Hill chalk of Kansas has been the source of several well preserved and nearly intact shark "mummies", < http://www.squali.com/fossili....ina.htm >

Specimen also displays several areas of soft-tissue preservation, including the cartilage that attached the shoulder girdle to the skeleton and connected the ribs at the sternum.
< http://www.paleosearch.com/kschalk....ls.html >

Ichthiosaur soft tissue < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........1690467 >

Exceptionally well preserved pterosaur wing membrane from the Cretaceous of Brazil < http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html >

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs
< http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs........0..871M >

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted
< http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subject....a.shtml >

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
< http://www.biology-online.org/article....us.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fossilisation, and in a couple of cases incompletely-mineralised bone, muppet.  Not soft tissue.  Did you actually follow the links?

If I was talking to most people, I would assume you would know the difference between fossil impressions and the actual tissue.  But I'm talikng to someone who thinks pterosaurs, mosasaurs and sharks are dinosaurs, so I'm not optimistic.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,12:25

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,08:54)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,00:59)
Oh Ogre, I almost forgot. Your cat and dog examples are a poor representation of brown bear to polar bear and dichotomies because the white fur of polar bears is more than likely an epigenetic regulation of melanin and hollowing.

The Panda is a whole different beast and I dont believe that its chromosomes fused with a grizzly bear but its sesmoid thumb morphology is more than likely epigenetic as it is in so many other beast

And thanks. Its great that you step up to the plate
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why?  My examples are what happens.  I'll need peer-reviewed evidence that polar bears and brown bears are actually the same species and that if you put a brown bear in the arctic it will become a polar bear.  I'll need evidence that an epigenetic change will last for 100,000 years (the time of the earliest recorded polar bear).

Please quote where I said a panda fused with a grizzly.  What I said, is that the panda maintains the entire range of traits that identify it as belonging to order carnivora.  In that way, a panda is more like a brown bear than a horse.

Please quote the evidence from a peer-reviewed study that the panda's thumb is epigenetic.

It's a damn shame that you won't step up to the plate.  You keep making claims with absolutely no supporting evidence.

I'll repeat... even if much of the changes are epigenetic and environmental (which is not the case), then it  still does not mean creationism is right and evolution is wrong.

Care to deal with the Flood geology? Or do you want to provide any evidence that I'm asking for?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Some brown bears and polar bears are more closley related to each other than are some polar to polar bears and brown bears are to brown bears.

Just google sesmoid and epigenetic and mechanical loading

The relationship of epigenetics to mechanobiology can be seen, for example, in the development of sesamoid bones, which Sarin and colleagues expressed as “mediated epigenetically by local mechanical forces.”2  Sarin VK, Erikson GM, Giori NJ, Bergman AG, Carter DR. Coincident development of sesamoid bones and clues to their evolution, The Anatomical Record, 1999; 257(5): 174-180.

There are all kinds of stimuli that could keep the melanin switch turned off
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,12:28

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2011,12:19)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,09:59)
And here are just a few examples of dino soft tissue that leaves da cave boys in da dust

A wing membrane from a 60 ft Pterosaur < http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html >

Mososaur soft tissue < http://www.oceansofkansas.com/mus-tyl....lo.html >

The Smoky Hill chalk of Kansas has been the source of several well preserved and nearly intact shark "mummies", < http://www.squali.com/fossili....ina.htm >

Specimen also displays several areas of soft-tissue preservation, including the cartilage that attached the shoulder girdle to the skeleton and connected the ribs at the sternum.
< http://www.paleosearch.com/kschalk....ls.html >

Ichthiosaur soft tissue < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........1690467 >

Exceptionally well preserved pterosaur wing membrane from the Cretaceous of Brazil < http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html >

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs
< http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs........0..871M >

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted
< http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subject....a.shtml >

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
< http://www.biology-online.org/article....us.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fossilisation, and in a couple of cases incompletely-mineralised bone, muppet.  Not soft tissue.  Did you actually follow the links?

If I was talking to most people, I would assume you would know the difference between fossil impressions and the actual tissue.  But I'm talikng to someone who thinks pterosaurs, mosasaurs and sharks are dinosaurs, so I'm not optimistic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See, those stay in denial  dont deserve a good teacher
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,12:41

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,09:15)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,03:10)
Actually, you had had looked into some billions of years-old crystal ball chronologies  when I said:

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

Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......

I gave you many quotes from top scientists who claimed "explosion" including from your own links. Plus the priest that developed the Big Bang theory said it was an explosion and Einstein concurred that the priest was right.

Again for the fifth time, try googling Cambrian and benthic

What geologic columns? You can find stratigraphic relatively  in recent terms but uplifting destroys, mixes and or contaminates very ancient stratigraphy. Even Cenozoic sites are a jumbled hodgepodge dated by preconceived ideas.  Even De Vince knew that. Just look at a geological map. Its a mosaic spread out horizontally in all kinds of crazy looking mosaics based on index fossils, which were supposedly originally dated by depth. This is circular reasoning. Plus, we are finding living index fossils all the time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yeah here we go again.  Do you read what we write?

1) look up isochrons, explain in detail why all isochron dating methods are wrong and yet they still all converge on the same date.

2) The sun is 'dying' by known physical, chemical, and nuclear processes that are consistent with known processes.  In fact, it is also known that these processes are exactly the same as they were about 13 billion years ago... because we can see these processes in action 13 billion years ago.

3) Earth's rotation and Lunar rotations are caused by the exact same thing, a transfer of energy from the Earth to the Moon, causing the Earth to slow and the Moon to speed up, moving away from us.  This is simple, very simple, physics.  It is a known, explained process that does not mean fundamental laws are changing.

4) currents change all the time.  Major currents also change, just more slowly.  This is a known and explained process that does not indicate fundamental laws are changing.

5) Earth's internal heat is based on radiation.  When the process or radioactive decay occurs (a known process that does not indicate fundamental laws are changing) that means there is less material to warm the interior of the Earth.  

I could go on, but there is no point.

You, forastero, are confusing the fundamental laws of nature, with the natural process of entropy as energy flows are used to create work and some of that energy is lost to non-productive heat.  

There is nothing in this list that implies or indicates in any way that a fundamental law, force, or character is changing.

I have previously asked you for evidence for the latter three of these claims and you did not provide any.

Quotes!?!?!? Who cares?  An explosion is a simple explanation for people who can't understand expansion.  I'll ask you again... what exploded?  Since even sub-atomic particles and matter/anti-matter didn't exist until AFTER the big bang... what exploded?

The Cambrian was an era.  The benthic fossils that you are concerned with were FOUND in a variety of rocks that are Cambrian in age (i.e. 530 mya and 580 mya).  The reason, of course, that all the life was benthic is because a) There were no land dwelling species at the time and b) the formations that caused the majority of the fossillization were underwater landslides on continental shelves and canyons.

I don't understand why you can't understand this.

No, they are not.  The geologic column was developed and used for construction purposes well before Darwin was born.  In fact, the early (Christian) geologists could look at the fossils in a rock column and tell you what kind of rock it was and what kind of rock was above it and below it.

Interestingly, your claim here makes a mockery of entire fields of industry that are making billions of dollars per year (oil, diamonds, coal, etc).  So, since they are making money (lots of money) off what you claim to be inaccurate, I think that pretty much trumps your claims.

No, we do not find living index fossils all the time.  That's why they are index fossils because they lived for a very specific amount of time and then no more were ever found.  Like I said, oil geologists use index fossils daily.  It works.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If if the systems degrade [due to sin] as you say, it doesnt diminish the fact that thing or way different today. Plus you even admit that the forces makes huge leaps and drops.

Oh and again, what are you empirically calibrating this dating  technique to and why must they autonomously send the samples all over to "supposedly" prevent the abundantly prevalent fraud with these dating techniques? A few secret emails is the norm, I'm sure.

Again go look at a geological map like the dudes do and you will see that these so called eras are spread all over horizontally. Plus oil dudes often love anything that supports survival of the fittest corporate cronyism.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 05 2011,12:47

Forastero the strange, would you clarify something for me? I cannot fathom your position, but I am trying.

I gather that you endorse the reality of various geological eras, including the Triassic (250 mya - mya), the Jurassic (199 mya to 145 mya), and Cretaceous (145 mya - 65 mya).

You do that when you say, "speaking of explosions, there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions."

In that passage you assert that there occurred "explosions of life" during each of these eras, explosions that stand as evidence for ID. Because it would be unintelligible to simultaneously make assertions regarding events of those eras and deny that those same eras existed/occurred at all, I conclude that you endorse the chronologies to which those eras refer, including the eras spanning the period 250 mya through 65 mya.

Moreover, because you describe the occurrence of biological "explosions" during these eras, including the eras spanning 250 mya through 65 mya, it follows that endorse the notion that life was present during those ancient eras, sometimes "exploding" into radiations of additional diversity and complexity.

---

Now you argue that it is "ridiculous" to say that dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years, yet observe that all kinds of dinosaurs are found with soft tissues. In so saying, you perforce are denying that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

So, put these two assertions together for me:

"there existed geological eras spanning 250 mya through 65 mya during which life was thriving and diverse, sometimes evidenced by 'explosions' of diversity."

And

"dinosaurs didn't live millions of years ago, but rather much more recently, recently enough to permit the preservation of soft tissue."

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?  

In which case, then, it follows you are asserting that other forms of life did the exploding during, for example, the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous explosions. What forms were those?

Or, perhaps is it your belief that the eras themselves did not exist at all, and that the entirety of geological and physical evidence through which these eras have been inferred and dated actually arose through other, very recent processes - sufficiently recent to permit the persistence of "all kinds" of dinosaur tissue.

In which case your assertion that "explosions" occurred during those eras that stand as evidence for ID becomes completely unintelligible, as you cannot simultaneously deny the eras and make assertions about them.

It also follows that when you use terms like "Triassic" and "Cretaceous" you are in fact using private terms that bear no relationship to those terms as employed by sciences of geology and paleontology. You therefore deny yourself access to research referencing these eras using these terms in their ordinary scientific senses. Given that, what evidence do you have for the occurrence of "explosions" of life during the eras of your own invention?

Or, perhaps you aren't denying that dinosaurs did live 250 - 65 mya, but rather are saying that the tissues to which you refer didn't originate with dinosaurs. Also completely unintelligible, given your assertion that "all kinds of dinosaurs are found with soft tissues."

Or...?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,12:52

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,09:20)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,03:57)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,03:29)
A real live one

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet the fundamental forces remain the same. To account for a young universe the change in speed of light would have fried adam and all other life. Strange how on one hand all of the universal constants have been perfectly designed for life but then they can be warped to suit a young universe.

As for the rest, wow they are certainly making creationists stupider - Fruit and vegetables have less minerals? Not if you shop at the right places.

Star migration is slowing?? WTF
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


speed of light ? thats all? Anyway, the amount of light hitting the earth has definitely changed and does change a lot. Your Gould scriptures will tell you that

And Wrong

And yes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Citation please for the fruits and bones thing.  I asked well over a week ago.  None yet.

The amount of light hitting the Earth has changed... duh.

This is a well known phenomena that the sun goes through cycles of lowered and increased radiative output.  It is in no way evidence for or implying that any fundamental laws of the universe are changing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have given all kinds of examples on bone density diminishing over time in several critters and the only thing you could respond with was an island dwarf. Again, they call them island dwarfs because they're ancestors were more robust.

Vitamin loss in vegis < http://www.lifeextensionvitamins.com/vewivii....co.html >

Oh and physicians do understand the growth and degradation that sin can have on a body over time as do good stewards of the earth
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,12:56

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2011,12:47)
Forastero the strange, would you clarify something for me? I cannot fathom your position, but I am trying.

I gather that you endorse the reality of various geological eras, including the Triassic (250 mya - mya), the Jurassic (199 mya to 145 mya), and Cretaceous (145 mya - 65 mya).

You do that when you say, "speaking of explosions, there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions."

In that passage you assert that there occurred "explosions of life" during each of these eras, explosions that stand as evidence for ID. Because it would be unintelligible to simultaneously make assertions regarding events of those eras and deny that those same eras existed/occurred at all, I conclude that you endorse the chronologies to which those eras refer, including the eras spanning the period 250 mya through 65 mya.

Moreover, because you describe the occurrence of biological "explosions" during these eras, including the eras spanning 250 mya through 65 mya, it follows that endorse the notion that life was present during those ancient eras, sometimes "exploding" into radiations of additional diversity and complexity.

---

Now you argue that it is "ridiculous" to say that dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years, yet observe that all kinds of dinosaurs are found with soft tissues. In so saying, you perforce are denying that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.

So, put these two assertions together for me:

"there existed geological eras spanning 250 mya through 65 mya during which life was thriving and diverse, sometimes evidenced by 'explosions' of diversity."

And

"dinosaurs didn't live millions of years ago, but rather much more recently, recently enough to permit the preservation of soft tissue."

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?  

In which case, then, it follows you are asserting that other forms of life did the exploding during, for example, the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous explosions. What forms were those?

Or, perhaps is it your belief that the eras themselves did not exist at all, and that the entirety of geological and physical evidence through which these eras have been inferred and dated actually arose through other, very recent processes - sufficiently recent to permit the persistence of "all kinds" of dinosaur tissue.

In which case your assertion that "explosions" occurred during those eras that stand as evidence for ID becomes completely unintelligible, as you cannot simultaneously deny the eras and make assertions about them.

It also follows that when you use terms like "Triassic" and "Cretaceous" you are in fact using private terms that bear no relationship to those terms as employed by sciences of geology and paleontology. You therefore deny yourself access to research referencing these eras using these terms in their ordinary scientific senses. Given that, what evidence do you have for the occurrence of "explosions" of life during the eras of your own invention?

Or, perhaps you aren't denying that dinosaurs did live 250 - 65 mya, but rather are saying that the tissues to which you refer didn't originate with dinosaurs. Also completely unintelligible, given your assertion that "all kinds of dinosaurs are found with soft tissues."

Or...?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have clearly said in Occam terms that those eras represent only a antediluvian and post flood  eras with many eco zones
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2011,13:05

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:15)
Where did I indicate that I disagreed with polyphenic genes? That is what I have been teaching you about. That said, I am not a good teacher to you because you dont deserve it.

In your own words and mine, the mutations detract from their fitness inn one way or another. Short legged cats dont always have a disadvantage like you say but there are plenty of age-old organizations trying to prevent the breeding of them. There must be a reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow... so much is explained about your personality in this short statement.

EVERYONE deserves to learn everything that they can, all the time.  If you disagree, then you are part of the reason that US kids suck at everything.

In the last sentence... {begin snark} because the old ways are always best right? {end snark}

I can't express how stupid that last sentence is.  If there is a reason, then state it.  Doing something because it's tradition, regardless of whether it's right or not, is one of the fundamental problems that religion causes in our modern world.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2011,13:07

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2011,12:19)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,09:59)
And here are just a few examples of dino soft tissue that leaves da cave boys in da dust

A wing membrane from a 60 ft Pterosaur < http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html >

Mososaur soft tissue < http://www.oceansofkansas.com/mus-tyl....lo.html >

The Smoky Hill chalk of Kansas has been the source of several well preserved and nearly intact shark "mummies", < http://www.squali.com/fossili....ina.htm >

Specimen also displays several areas of soft-tissue preservation, including the cartilage that attached the shoulder girdle to the skeleton and connected the ribs at the sternum.
< http://www.paleosearch.com/kschalk....ls.html >

Ichthiosaur soft tissue < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........1690467 >

Exceptionally well preserved pterosaur wing membrane from the Cretaceous of Brazil < http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html >

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs
< http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs........0..871M >

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted
< http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subject....a.shtml >

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
< http://www.biology-online.org/article....us.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fossilisation, and in a couple of cases incompletely-mineralised bone, muppet.  Not soft tissue.  Did you actually follow the links?

If I was talking to most people, I would assume you would know the difference between fossil impressions and the actual tissue.  But I'm talikng to someone who thinks pterosaurs, mosasaurs and sharks are dinosaurs, so I'm not optimistic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, John, that was my next project... to look those up, but (as I predicted mind you), he went with impressions that soft tissue left in soft, fine grained sediment.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 05 2011,13:10

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,13:56)
I have clearly said in Occam terms that those eras represent only a antediluvian and post flood  eras with many eco zones
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That describes a private, idiosyncratic use of those terms.

You therefore deny yourself access to research conclusions that employ these terms of art in the more ordinary sense, including research that discloses "explosive" radiations of diversity, to support ID, as those terms in the professional literature have different referents than do the terms of your private language.

Entering your frame of reference, when was the flood, relative to which these eras were 'ante' and 'post'? That will enable us to begin to assign meaning to your  "antedeluvian" and "post flood" chronology.

Which eras were 'ante,' and which 'post' flood?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2011,13:12

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:52)
I have given all kinds of examples on bone density diminishing over time in several critters and the only thing you could respond with was an island dwarf. Again, they call them island dwarfs because they're ancestors were more robust.

Vitamin loss in vegis < http://www.lifeextensionvitamins.com/vewivii....co.html >

Oh and physicians do understand the growth and degradation that sin can have on a body over time as do good stewards of the earth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummm.... you do realize that bone density =/= robustness.

Bone density is a measure of the mass of the bone in a unit volume.  For example, ostriches have a lower bone density that cats, even though the ostriches are larger and even have thicker, more robust bones.  Why?  Because bird bones are much less dense.

sigh...

I'm fairly certain that life extension vitamins.com is not exactly peer-reviewed.  If they link to a peer-reviewed article, then I suggest you just link to that.

Define 'sin'.

Calculate the effects of sin on the various body parts, I would suggest a graph with the 'sinfullness' correlated with the degradation in body parts over the last 100,000 years... oh wait, that's older than the Earth by a factor of about 15...

This is getting crazier and crazier.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2011,13:17

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:41)
If if the systems degrade [due to sin] as you say, it doesnt diminish the fact that thing or way different today. Plus you even admit that the forces makes huge leaps and drops.

Oh and again, what are you empirically calibrating this dating  technique to and why must they autonomously send the samples all over to "supposedly" prevent the abundantly prevalent fraud with these dating techniques? A few secret emails is the norm, I'm sure.

Again go look at a geological map like the dudes do and you will see that these so called eras are spread all over horizontally. Plus oil dudes often love anything that supports survival of the fittest corporate cronyism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) quote me, in context, as saying that forces make huge leaps and drops.  Explain how my comment (as referenced above) implies in any way, shape, or form that fundamental laws are changing.  (Hint, the force applied to a car when you lightly touch the gas pedal is much lower than when you press the pedal all the way to the floor.)

2) isochrons - look it up

 You still have not explained what the mechanism of the change in fundamental forces is that would cause radioactivity to change rates.  You still have not explained how this change continues to result in wildly different dating methods all returning the same age.  

3) Have you ever heard of 'uplift' or 'sinking'.

You are actually incorrect, oil dudes love anything that makes them money and geology does so.  What contributions have your notions made to the world?  None...
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,14:08

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:05)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:15)
Where did I indicate that I disagreed with polyphenic genes? That is what I have been teaching you about. That said, I am not a good teacher to you because you dont deserve it.

In your own words and mine, the mutations detract from their fitness inn one way or another. Short legged cats dont always have a disadvantage like you say but there are plenty of age-old organizations trying to prevent the breeding of them. There must be a reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow... so much is explained about your personality in this short statement.

EVERYONE deserves to learn everything that they can, all the time.  If you disagree, then you are part of the reason that US kids suck at everything.

In the last sentence... {begin snark} because the old ways are always best right? {end snark}

I can't express how stupid that last sentence is.  If there is a reason, then state it.  Doing something because it's tradition, regardless of whether it's right or not, is one of the fundamental problems that religion causes in our modern world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha ha..do you also believe the Nazis deserved to learn your creed?

evolutionism has always been the most intolerant to every one who wasn't of their "favored race" and creed. Heck, this very website has has expelled me from all other forums and banished me to this one thread like the plague.

Btw 2 I am sure those old cat and dog societies can be down right uppity but they are known to allow mutations so what is it about the short legged cat?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,14:41

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:07)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2011,12:19)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,09:59)
And here are just a few examples of dino soft tissue that leaves da cave boys in da dust

A wing membrane from a 60 ft Pterosaur < http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html >

Mososaur soft tissue < http://www.oceansofkansas.com/mus-tyl....lo.html >

The Smoky Hill chalk of Kansas has been the source of several well preserved and nearly intact shark "mummies", < http://www.squali.com/fossili....ina.htm >

Specimen also displays several areas of soft-tissue preservation, including the cartilage that attached the shoulder girdle to the skeleton and connected the ribs at the sternum.
< http://www.paleosearch.com/kschalk....ls.html >

Ichthiosaur soft tissue < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........1690467 >

Exceptionally well preserved pterosaur wing membrane from the Cretaceous of Brazil < http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html >

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs
< http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs........0..871M >

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted
< http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subject....a.shtml >

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
< http://www.biology-online.org/article....us.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fossilisation, and in a couple of cases incompletely-mineralised bone, muppet.  Not soft tissue.  Did you actually follow the links?

If I was talking to most people, I would assume you would know the difference between fossil impressions and the actual tissue.  But I'm talikng to someone who thinks pterosaurs, mosasaurs and sharks are dinosaurs, so I'm not optimistic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, John, that was my next project... to look those up, but (as I predicted mind you), he went with impressions that soft tissue left in soft, fine grained sediment.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dinosaur mummy yields organic molecules
< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id....4XLc-t4 >

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs

Two different immunological assays were used to identify the remains of a bone matrix protein, osteocalcin (OC), in the bones of dinosaurs and other fossil vertebrates. Antibodies raised against OC from modern vertebrates showed strong immunological cross-reactivity with modern and relatively young fossil samples and significant reactions with some of the dinosaur bone extracts. The presence of OC was confirmed by the detection of a peptide-bound, uniquely vertebrate amino acid, {gamma}carboxyglutamic acid (Gla). Preservation of OC in fossil bones appears to be strongly dependent on the burial history and not simply on age. These results extend the range of protein preservation in the geologic record and provide a first step toward a molecular phylogeny of the dinosaurs.

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted July 29, 2000
These scientists analyzed samples from two vertebrae and a rib fragment of a Triceratops from North Dakota, USA, isolating 130 base pairs of its 12S rRNA gene (ribosomal RNA, a type of RNA found in the ribosomes of cells, where protein synthesis occurs). 100% of the base pairs matched those of the turkey (and 94.5% were similar to many of the other bird RNA samples tested). If true, this find certainly strengthens the argument that birds and dinosaurs are closely related.

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue


The Smoky Hill chalk of Kansas has been the source of several well preserved and nearly intact shark "mummies", with complete dentitions, dermal scales, vertebral columns, stomach contents, and  cartilage. This shark probably reached lengths of 6 meters or more in the Western Interior Seaway during the late Cretaceous. < http://www.squali.com/fossili....ina.htm >

Specimen also displays several areas of soft-tissue preservation, including the cartilage that attached the shoulder girdle to the skeleton and connected the ribs at the sternum.
< http://www.paleosearch.com/kschalk....ls.html >

“I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.” Furthermore, she added, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’”
“The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed(or seen perhaps?) before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, ‘You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!’” Mary Schweitzer
< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id....7316912 > A video with her own words

...but her boss was putting negative pressure on her from the get go. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.” Jack Horner--Smithsonian Magazine May 2000. Sure they are going to dismiss her work and force her to retract. They did the same thing when they stomped all over Woodward's dinosaur bone DNA found in the coal mine.
< http://discovermagazine.com/2006....aur-dna >

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
It’s a girl … and she’s pregnant! Because the dinosaur tissues didn’t look exactly like pictures published of medullary bone in living birds like chicken and quail, Schweitzer’s team compared the tissue from the femur of the T. rex to that taken from leg bones of more primitive ratites, or flightless birds, such as ostriches and emus. These birds share more features with dinosaurs than other present-day birds. They selected an ostrich and an emu in different stages of their laying cycles, when medullary bone is present.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,14:47

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:17)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:41)
If if the systems degrade [due to sin] as you say, it doesnt diminish the fact that thing or way different today. Plus you even admit that the forces makes huge leaps and drops.

Oh and again, what are you empirically calibrating this dating  technique to and why must they autonomously send the samples all over to "supposedly" prevent the abundantly prevalent fraud with these dating techniques? A few secret emails is the norm, I'm sure.

Again go look at a geological map like the dudes do and you will see that these so called eras are spread all over horizontally. Plus oil dudes often love anything that supports survival of the fittest corporate cronyism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) quote me, in context, as saying that forces make huge leaps and drops.  Explain how my comment (as referenced above) implies in any way, shape, or form that fundamental laws are changing.  (Hint, the force applied to a car when you lightly touch the gas pedal is much lower than when you press the pedal all the way to the floor.)

2) isochrons - look it up

 You still have not explained what the mechanism of the change in fundamental forces is that would cause radioactivity to change rates.  You still have not explained how this change continues to result in wildly different dating methods all returning the same age.  

3) Have you ever heard of 'uplift' or 'sinking'.

You are actually incorrect, oil dudes love anything that makes them money and geology does so.  What contributions have your notions made to the world?  None...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just look at your quote on the radical gradients of solar forces

I'm the one that brought up uplift. Its why your geologic column myth is a joke

And I'm still waiting on how you calibrate your dating technique
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2011,15:12

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,14:08)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:05)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:15)
Where did I indicate that I disagreed with polyphenic genes? That is what I have been teaching you about. That said, I am not a good teacher to you because you dont deserve it.

In your own words and mine, the mutations detract from their fitness inn one way or another. Short legged cats dont always have a disadvantage like you say but there are plenty of age-old organizations trying to prevent the breeding of them. There must be a reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow... so much is explained about your personality in this short statement.

EVERYONE deserves to learn everything that they can, all the time.  If you disagree, then you are part of the reason that US kids suck at everything.

In the last sentence... {begin snark} because the old ways are always best right? {end snark}

I can't express how stupid that last sentence is.  If there is a reason, then state it.  Doing something because it's tradition, regardless of whether it's right or not, is one of the fundamental problems that religion causes in our modern world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha ha..do you also believe the Nazis deserved to learn your creed?

evolutionism has always been the most intolerant to every one who wasn't of their "favored race" and creed. Heck, this very website has has expelled me from all other forums and banished me to this one thread like the plague.

Btw 2 I am sure those old cat and dog societies can be down right uppity but they are known to allow mutations so what is it about the short legged cat?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Naxis deserve to learn everything I have to teach them too.  However, much like you, they often choose not to learn.

I have no creed.

Really.  Here's the definition of evolution (even IDists agree on this)

Change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

Please show me were 'favored race', 'creed', 'intolerance', etc is in this definition.. because I must have missed it.

BTW: Just so you know, just because a few people 150 years ago held a certain idea, that does not mean it is central dogma on which the entire science of Biology is based.  The central idea of Biology is based on reproducible evidence.

You were expelled to this forum so that you would stay on topic (it was obvious that you choose not to stay on topics on the other threads).  You have been allowed to remain here, in fact, I don't recall anyone actually being banned from here... unlike ALL of the forums that support YOUR ideas.  Heck, there's a whole thread dedicated to the permanent bannings of users in those other forums... most of which is just for asking questions (much like those you refuse to answer).

Please do not attempt to take a concern troll attitude.  You have to actually be persecuted to be do that.

BTW: I'm sure that if you learned about the subject, you might find the answer (hint: 1983).
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2011,15:28

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,14:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:17)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:41)
If if the systems degrade [due to sin] as you say, it doesnt diminish the fact that thing or way different today. Plus you even admit that the forces makes huge leaps and drops.

Oh and again, what are you empirically calibrating this dating  technique to and why must they autonomously send the samples all over to "supposedly" prevent the abundantly prevalent fraud with these dating techniques? A few secret emails is the norm, I'm sure.

Again go look at a geological map like the dudes do and you will see that these so called eras are spread all over horizontally. Plus oil dudes often love anything that supports survival of the fittest corporate cronyism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) quote me, in context, as saying that forces make huge leaps and drops.  Explain how my comment (as referenced above) implies in any way, shape, or form that fundamental laws are changing.  (Hint, the force applied to a car when you lightly touch the gas pedal is much lower than when you press the pedal all the way to the floor.)

2) isochrons - look it up

 You still have not explained what the mechanism of the change in fundamental forces is that would cause radioactivity to change rates.  You still have not explained how this change continues to result in wildly different dating methods all returning the same age.  

3) Have you ever heard of 'uplift' or 'sinking'.

You are actually incorrect, oil dudes love anything that makes them money and geology does so.  What contributions have your notions made to the world?  None...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just look at your quote on the radical gradients of solar forces

I'm the one that brought up uplift. Its why your geologic column myth is a joke

And I'm still waiting on how you calibrate your dating technique
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


gradient of solar forces... which solar forces?  Gravity, temperature pressure, solar winds, what?  All neatly explained by the laws of physics that you say are changing.  They aren't and there is no evidence or even hint that they do.

Yes, uplift.  What do you think uplift is?  On what scale do you think uplift occurs?  What is uplifted?   From where?  

I and two others have already told you how radioactive dating techniques are calibrated... I S O C H R O N S

here: < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....ng.html >

Are you asking how we know what the half life of materials is?  Because that's pretty easy too.  You watch one, measure the mass of the parent material before, measure the mass of the daughter material after.  Once you know how long it for x amount of material to decay, then it is a trivial math exercise to determine half life.

Or are you against math too?

Please keep in mind that you are obviously ignorant of this knowledge and you choose to remain so, since the source material for this linked to article is 1969 to 1996.

You could have found out the answer to your question in about 5 minutes had you typed 'calibration radioactive dating isochron' into Google.  You choose not to do that.  Your ignorance reflects poorly on your subject.  I was wrong, that happens, you choose to remain ignorant about a subject that you are arguing about.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 05 2011,17:19

Forastero -

I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts on when the flood occurred, which eras preceded the flood, and which followed.

We should really call them 'foresteras,' given that you have severed yourself from any connection to the standard chronology as parsed relative to the worldwide geological column and the passage of deep time it records. But since you make specific claims using standard nomenclature vis explosions for many geological periods, describe your eras in those terms.

When was the flood? Which eras preceded the flood, and which followed?
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 05 2011,17:47

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,01:35)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:29)
Flat earth ...

Isaiah 11:12  
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Proverbs 8:27-  When he prepared the heavens, I was there, When he drew a circle on the face of the deep

Isaiah 40:22-  It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it's inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Also unmoving:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

I wont even start on the firmanent and vaults of heaven
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Hebrew Bible uses poems  consistent with  the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, such as in the Enuma Elish, which described a circular earth surrounded by water above and below, as illustrated by references to the "foundations of the earth" and the "circle of the earth. In numerous passages, the bible refers to the earth as a campus in relation to night and day, boundaries and winds (easterlies, northerlies etc) so the four corners or "wings" logically means north, south, east and west. For instance Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Nebuchadnezzar was in a prophetic dream-time state and thus able to see the earth from afar and seeing the ends of the continents.  

Likewise, in  Mathew, even if Satan can see through solid earth, his best vantage point to see, accuse, and influence all of the kingdoms would logically be from a distance like a "angel of [false] light" (imagine a parabolic beam), hence the name "prince of the power of the air". This is why there are so many depiction  of ancient gods giving of conic and oblique powers

Early Church fathers like Augustine and Constantine’s tutor Lactantius believed in a spherical earth. The early Christian also often depicted symbols of Christ over the sphere of the earth or angels holding a spherical earth.

The flat earth ties to Christians was based mostly on lies by bible hating humanists like John W. Draper and Andrew Dickson White   Russell, J. B. 1997. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback, Westport, Conn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you are saying while everybody else around them thought the world was flat, the early Jews knew it was spherical and instead of saying that our God told us that the earth is a sphere, they used the same flat earth language but only meant it metaphorically. Well explain then why we can't assert that they knew that the universe is 13 billion years old and the whole 7 day thing and the flood is metaphorical as well?
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 05 2011,18:37

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,02:05)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:40)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,19:22)
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:15)
The canyon system doesn't snake like the grand canyon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No canyons snake the same because no giant giant forces snake the same
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly - a canyon that is created over millions of years will meander like the grand canyon


with the mt St Helens comparisions:

The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into harder materials, including well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed sediments (the Vishnu schist), plus a touch of relatively recent basalt.

The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees. The walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places.

The canyon was not entirely formed suddenly. The canyon along Toutle River has a river continuously contributing to its formation.

The streams flowing down Mount St. Helens flow at a steeper grade than the Colorado River does, allowing greater erosion.

The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. Helens. The two are not really comparable.

Edit: wrote St Helens instead of Grand Canyon
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More pseudoempiricism from you. Various anomalies at St Helens and abroad show that super chaotic cataclysm forces dont always snake the same way as you say. Some gouge out vertically some not so vertically
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So why use such a bad example as Mt St Helens? Show us an catastrophic example that does look like the grand canyon.
Posted by: khan on Nov. 05 2011,18:41

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,15:08)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:05)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:15)
Where did I indicate that I disagreed with polyphenic genes? That is what I have been teaching you about. That said, I am not a good teacher to you because you dont deserve it.

In your own words and mine, the mutations detract from their fitness inn one way or another. Short legged cats dont always have a disadvantage like you say but there are plenty of age-old organizations trying to prevent the breeding of them. There must be a reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow... so much is explained about your personality in this short statement.

EVERYONE deserves to learn everything that they can, all the time.  If you disagree, then you are part of the reason that US kids suck at everything.

In the last sentence... {begin snark} because the old ways are always best right? {end snark}

I can't express how stupid that last sentence is.  If there is a reason, then state it.  Doing something because it's tradition, regardless of whether it's right or not, is one of the fundamental problems that religion causes in our modern world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha ha..do you also believe the Nazis deserved to learn your creed?

evolutionism has always been the most intolerant to every one who wasn't of their "favored race" and creed. Heck, this very website has has expelled me from all other forums and banished me to this one thread like the plague.

Btw 2 I am sure those old cat and dog societies can be down right uppity but they are known to allow mutations so what is it about the short legged cat?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think "forastero" has officially filled out the creationist bingo card. We can all go home now and leave it rolling around in its own shit.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 05 2011,19:07

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2011,02:08)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,01:50)
Fossil areas all over the world have mammals and dinosaurs in the same vicinity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course they do, muppet.  Mammals evolved from synapsids in the Triassic.  What's your point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note that I originally said "modern" mammals. He accuses practically every body else in the world of lying of lying but just on this thread we can document many his lies:

All kinds of dinosaurs are being found with soft tissues - He then gives us a list that contains creatures that aren't dinosaurs and examples of soft tissue impressions. In fact he finds one example that is contentious and is being studied by those same SCIENTISTS who he accuses of burying information supporting his fantasies.

Mt St Helens has a canyon exactly like the grand canyon - well no exactly but there are ones that are exactly like the grand canyon but he could be bother digging them up.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 05 2011,20:49

< Antievolutionist Bingo >
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,22:56

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,15:28)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,14:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:17)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:41)
If if the systems degrade [due to sin] as you say, it doesnt diminish the fact that thing or way different today. Plus you even admit that the forces makes huge leaps and drops.

Oh and again, what are you empirically calibrating this dating  technique to and why must they autonomously send the samples all over to "supposedly" prevent the abundantly prevalent fraud with these dating techniques? A few secret emails is the norm, I'm sure.

Again go look at a geological map like the dudes do and you will see that these so called eras are spread all over horizontally. Plus oil dudes often love anything that supports survival of the fittest corporate cronyism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) quote me, in context, as saying that forces make huge leaps and drops.  Explain how my comment (as referenced above) implies in any way, shape, or form that fundamental laws are changing.  (Hint, the force applied to a car when you lightly touch the gas pedal is much lower than when you press the pedal all the way to the floor.)

2) isochrons - look it up

 You still have not explained what the mechanism of the change in fundamental forces is that would cause radioactivity to change rates.  You still have not explained how this change continues to result in wildly different dating methods all returning the same age.  

3) Have you ever heard of 'uplift' or 'sinking'.

You are actually incorrect, oil dudes love anything that makes them money and geology does so.  What contributions have your notions made to the world?  None...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just look at your quote on the radical gradients of solar forces

I'm the one that brought up uplift. Its why your geologic column myth is a joke

And I'm still waiting on how you calibrate your dating technique
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


gradient of solar forces... which solar forces?  Gravity, temperature pressure, solar winds, what?  All neatly explained by the laws of physics that you say are changing.  They aren't and there is no evidence or even hint that they do.

Yes, uplift.  What do you think uplift is?  On what scale do you think uplift occurs?  What is uplifted?   From where?  

I and two others have already told you how radioactive dating techniques are calibrated... I S O C H R O N S

here: < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html >

Are you asking how we know what the half life of materials is?  Because that's pretty easy too.  You watch one, measure the mass of the parent material before, measure the mass of the daughter material after.  Once you know how long it for x amount of material to decay, then it is a trivial math exercise to determine half life.

Or are you against math too?

Please keep in mind that you are obviously ignorant of this knowledge and you choose to remain so, since the source material for this linked to article is 1969 to 1996.

You could have found out the answer to your question in about 5 minutes had you typed 'calibration radioactive dating isochron' into Google.  You choose not to do that.  Your ignorance reflects poorly on your subject.  I was wrong, that happens, you choose to remain ignorant about a subject that you are arguing about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Calibration in radiometric dating is comparing dates with another accepted date like with tree rings or historic records

isochon dating calibrates itself with isochron datings
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Nov. 05 2011,23:25

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,22:56)
Calibration in radiometric dating is comparing dates with another accepted date like with tree rings or historic records

isochon dating calibrates itself with isochron datings
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not that there'd be anything wrong with isochrons validating isochrons--the physics is well-established--but that ignorant claim is just not true:

< Cyclostratigraphy confirms radiometric dating past 100 million years >

And there's really no question that the sun can't be enormously older or younger than around four and a half billion years.

As for the flood, evaporite deposits could hardly result from a flood, nor is the enormous amount of bioturbation, including huge numbers of worm burrows, consistent with any flood.  Not that creationists care about actual evidence.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 05 2011,23:32

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2011,17:19)
Forastero -

I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts on when the flood occurred, which eras preceded the flood, and which followed.

We should really call them 'foresteras,' given that you have severed yourself from any connection to the standard chronology as parsed relative to the worldwide geological column and the passage of deep time it records. But since you make specific claims using standard nomenclature vis explosions for many geological periods, describe your eras in those terms.

When was the flood? Which eras preceded the flood, and which followed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Antediluvian world was described somewhat in the Bible. The Nephilim were destroying the environment and the megafauna, and each other but the lord preserved much of his magnificent creation for us in the fossil record.  It was fairly tropical in my opinion.  The ice age was after the flood. The earth has been  warming and many inland seas have been drying up since the ice age and humans have a lot of influence.

The explosions of life and ice ages are from your scriptures but explained that I'm a lumper and not a splitter
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 06 2011,02:32

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,19:07)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2011,02:08)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,01:50)
Fossil areas all over the world have mammals and dinosaurs in the same vicinity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course they do, muppet.  Mammals evolved from synapsids in the Triassic.  What's your point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note that I originally said "modern" mammals. He accuses practically every body else in the world of lying of lying but just on this thread we can document many his lies:

All kinds of dinosaurs are being found with soft tissues - He then gives us a list that contains creatures that aren't dinosaurs and examples of soft tissue impressions. In fact he finds one example that is contentious and is being studied by those same SCIENTISTS who he accuses of burying information supporting his fantasies.

Mt St Helens has a canyon exactly like the grand canyon - well no exactly but there are ones that are exactly like the grand canyon but he could be bother digging them up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope I never accused everyone in the world of lying

Actually I gave quite a few examples of soft tissue

Your analogy is equivalent to saying that since cloud-to-ground lightening strikes dont "snake" exactly the same way, then its in no way equivalent
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 06 2011,02:45

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2011,23:25)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,22:56)
Calibration in radiometric dating is comparing dates with another accepted date like with tree rings or historic records

isochon dating calibrates itself with isochron datings
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not that there'd be anything wrong with isochrons validating isochrons--the physics is well-established--but that ignorant claim is just not true:

< Cyclostratigraphy confirms radiometric dating past 100 million years >

And there's really no question that the sun can't be enormously older or younger than around four and a half billion years.

As for the flood, evaporite deposits could hardly result from a flood, nor is the enormous amount of bioturbation, including huge numbers of worm burrows, consistent with any flood.  Not that creationists care about actual evidence.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll pick on your best Cyclostratigraphy

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

Oh and contamination is also still a problem
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 06 2011,02:57

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2011,23:25)
As for the flood, evaporite deposits could hardly result from a flood, nor is the enormous amount of bioturbation, including huge numbers of worm burrows, consistent with any flood.  Not that creationists care about actual evidence.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It wasnt just rain. The volcanic mid Atlantic ridge opened as did the fountains of the deep. Giant ice meteors  also hit the earth
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 06 2011,03:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
a antediluvian and post flood  eras with many eco zones
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Living in Norway with it's well researched and documented geology, supported also by the observation of current climatic/geological processes on Greenland, confirming all that we already knew about or own country, religious nonsesne like the quote above tells me all: He is not rational, he is lost in faith, like as in "Faith trumps science".

He has joined the ranks of people like Kurt Wise and John Baumgardner.

A miserable lot.
Posted by: rossum on Nov. 06 2011,05:29

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,02:57)
Giant ice meteors  also hit the earth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And the heat resulting from the impact of these "Giant ice meteors" was enough to ...

You may fill in the dots once you have done the calculation.

rossum

P.S. If you really want to impress us, you need to learn the difference between 'meteor' and 'meteorite'.
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 06 2011,05:56

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,03:57)
 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2011,23:25)
As for the flood, evaporite deposits could hardly result from a flood, nor is the enormous amount of bioturbation, including huge numbers of worm burrows, consistent with any flood.  Not that creationists care about actual evidence.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It wasnt just rain. The volcanic mid Atlantic ridge opened as did the fountains of the deep. Giant ice meteors  also hit the earth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Translation:  The fact that I know I am right (becuz i redd it in the bibble) means that my arguments get to assume evidence which does not exist, like "giant ice meteors" and "fountains of the deep" (whatever the fuck that means).
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 06 2011,06:22

Forastero:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Antediluvian world was described somewhat in the Bible. The Nephilim were destroying the environment and the megafauna, and each other but the lord preserved much of his magnificent creation for us in the fossil record.  It was fairly tropical in my opinion.  The ice age was after the flood. The earth has been  warming and many inland seas have been drying up since the ice age and humans have a lot of influence.

The explosions of life and ice ages are from your scriptures but explained that I'm a lumper and not a splitter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...is utter bullshit. These terms have no referents for you, given that you don't believe these eras to have existed. It follows that when you cite events in those eras as evidence of design (e.g. "explosions" that beg explanation)  you are uttering statements you believe to be false.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The [blah blah blah] was described somewhat in the Bible [blah blah blah]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So much for your initial sciencey lip service:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The practice of science involves formulating hypothesis that can be tested for falsifiability via observed data. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also deliberately misleading, as you don't give a shit about science.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 06 2011,06:51

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,00:32)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 05 2011,17:19)
Forastero -

I'm still interested in hearing your thoughts on when the flood occurred, which eras preceded the flood, and which followed.

We should really call them 'foresteras,' given that you have severed yourself from any connection to the standard chronology as parsed relative to the worldwide geological column and the passage of deep time it records. But since you make specific claims using standard nomenclature vis explosions for many geological periods, describe your eras in those terms.

When was the flood? Which eras preceded the flood, and which followed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Antediluvian world was described somewhat in the Bible. The Nephilim were destroying the environment and the megafauna, and each other but the lord preserved much of his magnificent creation for us in the fossil record.  It was fairly tropical in my opinion.  The ice age was after the flood. The earth has been  warming and many inland seas have been drying up since the ice age and humans have a lot of influence.

The explosions of life and ice ages are from your scriptures but explained that I'm a lumper and not a splitter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oh, in your opinion, i see.

ahem

"What makes your opinion about the supposed tropicality of a place that never existed in a time that never existed any more valid than say the opinion of the guy that tests my dogs stool samples for worms?"

please do reply

nephilim LOLOL
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 06 2011,07:45

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,02:32)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,19:07)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2011,02:08)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,01:50)
Fossil areas all over the world have mammals and dinosaurs in the same vicinity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course they do, muppet.  Mammals evolved from synapsids in the Triassic.  What's your point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note that I originally said "modern" mammals. He accuses practically every body else in the world of lying of lying but just on this thread we can document many his lies:

All kinds of dinosaurs are being found with soft tissues - He then gives us a list that contains creatures that aren't dinosaurs and examples of soft tissue impressions. In fact he finds one example that is contentious and is being studied by those same SCIENTISTS who he accuses of burying information supporting his fantasies.

Mt St Helens has a canyon exactly like the grand canyon - well no exactly but there are ones that are exactly like the grand canyon but he could be bother digging them up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope I never accused everyone in the world of lying

Actually I gave quite a few examples of soft tissue

Your analogy is equivalent to saying that since cloud-to-ground lightening strikes dont "snake" exactly the same way, then its in no way equivalent
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are lying here too.

You did NOT give examples of soft tissue.  You gave examples of the IMPRESSION of soft tissue that was made in soft, fine grained sediment.

You have not shown that you even understand the difference between tissue and rock.

You never did tell me what exploded to cause the Big Bang.

On the 'snaking canyons' thing.  All of lightening is explained by the physics involved.  Likewise canyon formation is explained by the chemistry and physics involved.

There is a fundamental difference between carving a straight channel in soft sediment and a multi-curved path carved through very hard rock.

What's the difference?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 06 2011,08:47

this jackoff isn't content to destroy his name and credibility publicly on PT but he wants to come here and be ritually abused.  

the thing is joe is that you are just another mentally ill person in the world, and you really should get help.  

look what happened to dennis markuze. there, but for the grace of a couple more weeks, goest thou.  

get help, or seriously consider swallowing a bottle of pills and swimming the channel.  either way you can't even stand yourself can you?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 06 2011,09:06

I get so frustrated with these people.  

They are utterly incapable of learning.  They think they know about science.  Our buddy here can't explain why epigenetics is evidence for creationism and not evolution... yet he wasted 4 pages of this thread on it.

Yet, he (and others) will go out into the world and keep saying things that are known lies in order to promote their religion.

I think Raven said it best, "It’s mostly been said. A lot of US fundie religion these days seems to be tribalism. “We believe the same silly things so we belong to the same tribe.” Some philosophers lately have noticed this and have said that US xianity has been zombiized. They don’t really much believe in god anymore or care, they believe in their tribe. They certainly don’t follow the tenets of their religion which prohibits lying among other things."
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Nov. 06 2011,09:39

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,02:57)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2011,23:25)
As for the flood, evaporite deposits could hardly result from a flood, nor is the enormous amount of bioturbation, including huge numbers of worm burrows, consistent with any flood.  Not that creationists care about actual evidence.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It wasnt just rain. The volcanic mid Atlantic ridge opened as did the fountains of the deep. Giant ice meteors  also hit the earth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That explains so much.  

Well, except for how evaporite deposits formed during Teh Flud, plus how bioturbation occurred while a flood was raging.  You know, what I wrote about.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 06 2011,09:47

Do we need to discuss the thermal energy released during such a world wide event... or would that be too much for his mind?
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Nov. 06 2011,10:03

I strongly suspect Forastero here is just another reincarnation of our good buddy and admitted troll Ghost Of Paley / Atheistoclast / Bozo who has recently gone quiet over at TalkRational.

Ash him about his position that the Holocaust was faked.  Or get him to talk about sweaty male wrestlers.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 06 2011,11:08

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 06 2011,15:03)
I strongly suspect Forastero here is just another reincarnation of our good buddy and admitted troll Ghost Of Paley / Atheistoclast / Bozo who has recently gone quiet over at TalkRational.

Ash him about his position that the Holocaust was faked.  Or get him to talk about sweaty male wrestlers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know I was thinking EXACTLY that. His schtick is very similar to GoP's, right down to the specific topics he brings up.

If this is the case: Fuck off GoP.

Louis
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 06 2011,11:28

Fostero's opening sciencey statement:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The practice of science involves formulating hypothesis that can be tested for falsifiability via observed data. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As one might expect, this was cobbled together by combining Wikipedia and Go.com definitions, without attribution.

< Wikipedia > on the null hypothesis:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< About.com > on theory in science:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, more bullshit from forastero, who endeavored to project a sciencey aura by means of cut and paste.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 06 2011,15:38

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 06 2011,11:03)
I strongly suspect Forastero here is just another reincarnation of our good buddy and admitted troll Ghost Of Paley / Atheistoclast / Bozo who has recently gone quiet over at TalkRational.

Ash him about his position that the Holocaust was faked.  Or get him to talk about sweaty male wrestlers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


i called that several pages ago LOL
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 06 2011,15:49

seriously, go see what this dumbass has done to himself. over on the bathroom wall on PT.  unbelievable.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 06 2011,16:39

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,17:32)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,19:07)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2011,02:08)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,01:50)
Fossil areas all over the world have mammals and dinosaurs in the same vicinity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course they do, muppet.  Mammals evolved from synapsids in the Triassic.  What's your point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note that I originally said "modern" mammals. He accuses practically every body else in the world of lying of lying but just on this thread we can document many his lies:

All kinds of dinosaurs are being found with soft tissues - He then gives us a list that contains creatures that aren't dinosaurs and examples of soft tissue impressions. In fact he finds one example that is contentious and is being studied by those same SCIENTISTS who he accuses of burying information supporting his fantasies.

Mt St Helens has a canyon exactly like the grand canyon - well no exactly but there are ones that are exactly like the grand canyon but he could be bother digging them up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope I never accused everyone in the world of lying

Actually I gave quite a few examples of soft tissue

Your analogy is equivalent to saying that since cloud-to-ground lightening strikes dont "snake" exactly the same way, then its in no way equivalent
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No the features I listed for the grand canyon are features shared by canyons formed rivers over millions of years which looks different a canyon formed instantly by the volcano.

Why do you need to twist things and lie all of the time?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 06 2011,17:45

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:12)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:52)
I have given all kinds of examples on bone density diminishing over time in several critters and the only thing you could respond with was an island dwarf. Again, they call them island dwarfs because they're ancestors were more robust.

Vitamin loss in vegis < http://www.lifeextensionvitamins.com/vewivii....co.html >

Oh and physicians do understand the growth and degradation that sin can have on a body over time as do good stewards of the earth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummm.... you do realize that bone density =/= robustness.

Bone density is a measure of the mass of the bone in a unit volume.  For example, ostriches have a lower bone density that cats, even though the ostriches are larger and even have thicker, more robust bones.  Why?  Because bird bones are much less dense.

sigh...

I'm fairly certain that life extension vitamins.com is not exactly peer-reviewed.  If they link to a peer-reviewed article, then I suggest you just link to that.

Define 'sin'.

Calculate the effects of sin on the various body parts, I would suggest a graph with the 'sinfullness' correlated with the degradation in body parts over the last 100,000 years... oh wait, that's older than the Earth by a factor of about 15...

This is getting crazier and crazier.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Peer reviewed? Who peer reviewed your " All U.S. kids suck at everything" quote; the anticreationists at Planned parenthood? Fyi, that study on mineral loss was done University of Texas and peer reviewed by The Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

Speaking of  fruits and vegetables, your cat and ostrich analysis is like comparing apples and oranges. The animals are designed for different activities but if you look at larger cat and ostrich ancestors their bones will not only be denser than modern representatives due to higher rates of nutrition and probably activity too but also stronger simply due to mass

Of coarse you deny the power of emotions, morality and consciousness. Special interest evolutionists feel a very deep desire feel all is relative
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 06 2011,17:52

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:17)
Here is your e
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:41)
If if the systems degrade [due to sin] as you say, it doesnt diminish the fact that thing or way different today. Plus you even admit that the forces makes huge leaps and drops.

Oh and again, what are you empirically calibrating this dating  technique to and why must they autonomously send the samples all over to "supposedly" prevent the abundantly prevalent fraud with these dating techniques? A few secret emails is the norm, I'm sure.

Again go look at a geological map like the dudes do and you will see that these so called eras are spread all over horizontally. Plus oil dudes often love anything that supports survival of the fittest corporate cronyism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) quote me, in context, as saying that forces make huge leaps and drops.  Explain how my comment (as referenced above) implies in any way, shape, or form that fundamental laws are changing.  (Hint, the force applied to a car when you lightly touch the gas pedal is much lower than when you press the pedal all the way to the floor.)

2) isochrons - look it up

 You still have not explained what the mechanism of the change in fundamental forces is that would cause radioactivity to change rates.  You still have not explained how this change continues to result in wildly different dating methods all returning the same age.  

3) Have you ever heard of 'uplift' or 'sinking'.

You are actually incorrect, oil dudes love anything that makes them money and geology does so.  What contributions have your notions made to the world?  None...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is your exact quote Ogre:"The amount of light hitting the Earth has changed... duh.
This is a well known phenomena that the sun goes through cycles of lowered and increased radiative output.  It is in no way evidence for or implying that any fundamental laws of the universe are changing."



Yes, I am the one who first brought up uplifting. All kinds of stuff gets uplifted and in often miraculously designed and derivatively designed ways

Um dude, thats about what I said about oil dudes too
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 06 2011,17:57

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,15:12)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,14:08)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:05)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:15)
Where did I indicate that I disagreed with polyphenic genes? That is what I have been teaching you about. That said, I am not a good teacher to you because you dont deserve it.

In your own words and mine, the mutations detract from their fitness inn one way or another. Short legged cats dont always have a disadvantage like you say but there are plenty of age-old organizations trying to prevent the breeding of them. There must be a reason.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow... so much is explained about your personality in this short statement.

EVERYONE deserves to learn everything that they can, all the time.  If you disagree, then you are part of the reason that US kids suck at everything.

In the last sentence... {begin snark} because the old ways are always best right? {end snark}

I can't express how stupid that last sentence is.  If there is a reason, then state it.  Doing something because it's tradition, regardless of whether it's right or not, is one of the fundamental problems that religion causes in our modern world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha ha..do you also believe the Nazis deserved to learn your creed?

evolutionism has always been the most intolerant to every one who wasn't of their "favored race" and creed. Heck, this very website has has expelled me from all other forums and banished me to this one thread like the plague.

Btw 2 I am sure those old cat and dog societies can be down right uppity but they are known to allow mutations so what is it about the short legged cat?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Naxis deserve to learn everything I have to teach them too.  However, much like you, they often choose not to learn.

I have no creed.

Really.  Here's the definition of evolution (even IDists agree on this)

Change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

Please show me were 'favored race', 'creed', 'intolerance', etc is in this definition.. because I must have missed it.

BTW: Just so you know, just because a few people 150 years ago held a certain idea, that does not mean it is central dogma on which the entire science of Biology is based.  The central idea of Biology is based on reproducible evidence.

You were expelled to this forum so that you would stay on topic (it was obvious that you choose not to stay on topics on the other threads).  You have been allowed to remain here, in fact, I don't recall anyone actually being banned from here... unlike ALL of the forums that support YOUR ideas.  Heck, there's a whole thread dedicated to the permanent bannings of users in those other forums... most of which is just for asking questions (much like those you refuse to answer).

Please do not attempt to take a concern troll attitude.  You have to actually be persecuted to be do that.

BTW: I'm sure that if you learned about the subject, you might find the answer (hint: 1983).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I’m, glad we agree that epigenetics is not evolution but whats so special about 1983 topicality?

Oh yeah, wasn’t that the year that atheistic concern trolls could finally cuss out Christians with keyboards and constitute trumped up tardicus topicality in order to suit me for some copy& paste lingo; like hipocriticos trying to save face while playing their mutationist bingo?

Well so sorry to spoil your willful illusions of supremacist grandeur preached to you by the two slave trade schools of anthropology and The Scopes Eugenics trial whom have been making man-made apemen since the Beagle took off to exploit foreign lands.

…and now with your Phylogenies showing chimps as more human than apes and African humans as closets to the apes, and ape-men with black skin and afros. Ha ha..its all politics. In fact the ape genome projects are all backed by liberal politicians with American tax dollars through sinister institutions with a long history of racists and homosexual and transhumanist’s agendas. A transhumanist agenda catapulted by the likes of Darwin and his cousin Galton, Margaret Sanger, The Rockefellers, and ecofeminists like Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh and her Time Warner sponsored Great Ape Trust.

Oh and the above is just one more reason that you bitterly feel that U.S. kids suck at everything
Posted by: khan on Nov. 06 2011,18:04

forastero would be closer to being understood if it used sentences
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 06 2011,18:08

changed my mind.  please poke it again LOL

this plus the PT hilarity convinced me.  let this idiot have the microphone, it's like a retarded carnival barker at a freak show for halfwits and sports
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 06 2011,18:13

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2011,07:45)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,02:32)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,19:07)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2011,02:08)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,01:50)
Fossil areas all over the world have mammals and dinosaurs in the same vicinity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course they do, muppet.  Mammals evolved from synapsids in the Triassic.  What's your point?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note that I originally said "modern" mammals. He accuses practically every body else in the world of lying of lying but just on this thread we can document many his lies:

All kinds of dinosaurs are being found with soft tissues - He then gives us a list that contains creatures that aren't dinosaurs and examples of soft tissue impressions. In fact he finds one example that is contentious and is being studied by those same SCIENTISTS who he accuses of burying information supporting his fantasies.

Mt St Helens has a canyon exactly like the grand canyon - well no exactly but there are ones that are exactly like the grand canyon but he could be bother digging them up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope I never accused everyone in the world of lying

Actually I gave quite a few examples of soft tissue

Your analogy is equivalent to saying that since cloud-to-ground lightening strikes dont "snake" exactly the same way, then its in no way equivalent
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are lying here too.

You did NOT give examples of soft tissue.  You gave examples of the IMPRESSION of soft tissue that was made in soft, fine grained sediment.

You have not shown that you even understand the difference between tissue and rock.

You never did tell me what exploded to cause the Big Bang.

On the 'snaking canyons' thing.  All of lightening is explained by the physics involved.  Likewise canyon formation is explained by the chemistry and physics involved.

There is a fundamental difference between carving a straight channel in soft sediment and a multi-curved path carved through very hard rock.

What's the difference?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Remember how narcissists dismissing everything without reading?  If you would have read the articles you would have seen quotes like

Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs
Two different immunological assays were used to identify the remains of a bone matrix protein, osteocalcin (OC), in the bones of dinosaurs and other fossil vertebrates. Antibodies raised against OC from modern vertebrates showed strong immunological cross-reactivity with modern and relatively young fossil samples and significant reactions with some of the dinosaur bone extracts. The presence of OC was confirmed by the detection of a peptide-bound, uniquely vertebrate amino acid, {gamma}carboxyglutamic acid (Gla). Preservation of OC in fossil bones appears to be strongly dependent on the burial history and not simply on age. These results extend the range of protein preservation in the geologic record and provide a first step toward a molecular phylogeny of the dinosaurs.

Dinosaur mummy yields organic molecules
< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id....4....4XLc-t4 >

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted July 29, 2000
These scientists analyzed samples from two vertebrae and a rib fragment of a Triceratops from North Dakota, USA, isolating 130 base pairs of its 12S rRNA gene (ribosomal RNA, a type of RNA found in the ribosomes of cells, where protein synthesis occurs). 100% of the base pairs matched those of the turkey (and 94.5% were similar to many of the other bird RNA samples tested). If true, this find certainly strengthens the argument that birds and dinosaurs are closely related.

Specimen also displays several areas of soft-tissue preservation, including the cartilage that attached the shoulder girdle to the skeleton and connected the ribs at the sternum.
< http://www.paleosearch.com/kschalk....ls.html >

“I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.” Furthermore, she added, “It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’”
“The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed(or seen perhaps?) before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, ‘You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!’” Mary Schweitzer
< http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id....7....7316912 > A video with her own words

...but her boss was putting negative pressure on her from the get go. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.” Jack Horner--Smithsonian Magazine May 2000. Sure they are going to dismiss her work and force her to retract. They did the same thing when they stomped all over Woodward's dinosaur bone DNA found in the coal mine.
< http://discovermagazine.com/2006.......aur-dna >

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
It’s a girl … and she’s pregnant! Because the dinosaur tissues didn’t look exactly like pictures published of medullary bone in living birds like chicken and quail, Schweitzer’s team compared the tissue from the femur of the T. rex to that taken from leg bones of more primitive ratites, or flightless birds, such as ostriches and emus. These birds share more features with dinosaurs than other present-day birds. They selected an ostrich and an emu in different stages of their laying cycles, when medullary bone is present.

Oh and btw not even mineralized impression fossils couldnt last in such a fine state over so called millions of years of uplift

again you scoffing without reading

“Spilling from the crater, Loowit Falls reshapes the north slope of the volcano. ‘You’d expect a hardrock canyon to be thousands, even hundreds of thousands of years old,’ says Peter Frenzen, monument scientist, ‘but this was cut in less than a decade." National Geographic, May 2000, p. 121.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 06 2011,18:17

Quote (khan @ Nov. 06 2011,18:04)
forastero would be closer to being understood if it used sentences
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or if the creationists caste were allowed the upper class privilege of  editing
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 06 2011,18:20

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,18:17)
Quote (khan @ Nov. 06 2011,18:04)
forastero would be closer to being understood if it used sentences
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or if the creationists caste were allowed the upper class privilege of  editing
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, you've got "copy/paste/plagiarise", assclown!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 06 2011,18:51

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,19:17)
Quote (khan @ Nov. 06 2011,18:04)
forastero would be closer to being understood if it used sentences
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or if the creationists caste were allowed the upper class privilege of  editing
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


STERNBERGLER HIM

hey asshole your bullshit is on here *forever*.  how does that feel, Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr?  why don't you just form letter batch crank all of the elsevier journals at once, or something.  just for shits and giggles?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 06 2011,19:42

this one is a classic

< http://talkrational.org/archive....68.html >

doozy.  hey, fourasstard you have gotten even dumberer in the past year.  

bonus wolfie

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Two dipshit non-scientists who pretend to be scientists doing a reacharound! All we need now is bachelor #3, Socrates, and we have us a little menage a tard in the making.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



you're not really bachelor number three, are you sweet treat?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 06 2011,20:09

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 06 2011,10:03)
I strongly suspect Forastero here is just another reincarnation of our good buddy and admitted troll Ghost Of Paley / Atheistoclast / Bozo who has recently gone quiet over at TalkRational.

Ash him about his position that the Holocaust was faked.  Or get him to talk about sweaty male wrestlers.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't remember Ghost of Paley being THIS stupid.  Maybe the years of acting stupid in isolation made him more stupid.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 06 2011,20:23

he is growing increasingly more agitated and, in the absence of me knowing the right clinical term for it, "bugfuck apeshit crazier than a nine eyed nitidulid in a sand storm".  TR, PT, here, who knows where else, the pattern is increasing amplitude and frequency.  

same troll.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 06 2011,20:27

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,17:45)
Peer reviewed? Who peer reviewed your " All U.S. kids suck at everything" quote; the anticreationists at Planned parenthood? Fyi, that study on mineral loss was done University of Texas and peer reviewed by The Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

Speaking of  fruits and vegetables, your cat and ostrich analysis is like comparing apples and oranges. The animals are designed for different activities but if you look at larger cat and ostrich ancestors their bones will not only be denser than modern representatives due to higher rates of nutrition and probably activity too but also stronger simply due to mass

Of coarse you deny the power of emotions, morality and consciousness. Special interest evolutionists feel a very deep desire feel all is relative
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm... It just crazier and crazier.  This is hilarious.

Did you actually read the article you linked to?  Please explain, in detail, how the following reasons for lower vegetable nutrition indicate a diminishing of fundamental laws of nature and/or sin.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

When asked about the apparent drain, commercial plant breeders refuse to comment, but clues have emerged as to why today's vegetables are not what they should be. It has to do with the way commercial growers do business.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Desirable traits for commercial growers who want produce to ship well, look good, and weigh a lot, but undesirable traits for consumers who buy produce as a source of nutrition. Plant jockeys call it "the dilution effect." More water and pith, less vitamin content.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Most commercial fruit, including tomatoes, is picked green. Green fruit doesn't have a chance to sun-ripen; it's artificially ripened with ethylene, a natural plant hormone. Ethylene is what causes tomatoes to turn pinkish. Produce deprived of sunlight doesn't have a chance to develop sunlight-related nutrients such as anthocyanins...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Other plant vitamins can also be affected by premature picking
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Changing climates, commercial fertilizers, and changes in soil composition have also been identified as reasons for the vitamin drain in commercial produce. Increasing carbon dioxide levels are known to significantly diminish important trace minerals, including zinc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There's more, but I'll stop there.  I expect an answer to the question.

BTW: Further evidence that US kids suck at science.  Reading and critical thinking are important in science, you seem to lack them.

I'm NOT comparing cats and ostriches... I'm comparing the relative density of the bone.  Again, a topic you brought up, then don't understand.  If you didn't mean bone density then you shouldn't have said it.

Quote me where I deny emotions, morals, and consciousness.  Go ahead, I'll wait.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 06 2011,20:37

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,17:52)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:17)
Here is your e
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:41)
If if the systems degrade [due to sin] as you say, it doesnt diminish the fact that thing or way different today. Plus you even admit that the forces makes huge leaps and drops.

Oh and again, what are you empirically calibrating this dating  technique to and why must they autonomously send the samples all over to "supposedly" prevent the abundantly prevalent fraud with these dating techniques? A few secret emails is the norm, I'm sure.

Again go look at a geological map like the dudes do and you will see that these so called eras are spread all over horizontally. Plus oil dudes often love anything that supports survival of the fittest corporate cronyism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) quote me, in context, as saying that forces make huge leaps and drops.  Explain how my comment (as referenced above) implies in any way, shape, or form that fundamental laws are changing.  (Hint, the force applied to a car when you lightly touch the gas pedal is much lower than when you press the pedal all the way to the floor.)

2) isochrons - look it up

 You still have not explained what the mechanism of the change in fundamental forces is that would cause radioactivity to change rates.  You still have not explained how this change continues to result in wildly different dating methods all returning the same age.  

3) Have you ever heard of 'uplift' or 'sinking'.

You are actually incorrect, oil dudes love anything that makes them money and geology does so.  What contributions have your notions made to the world?  None...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is your exact quote Ogre:"The amount of light hitting the Earth has changed... duh.
This is a well known phenomena that the sun goes through cycles of lowered and increased radiative output.  It is in no way evidence for or implying that any fundamental laws of the universe are changing."



Yes, I am the one who first brought up uplifting. All kinds of stuff gets uplifted and in often miraculously designed and derivatively designed ways

Um dude, thats about what I said about oil dudes too
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You didn't finish your work.  You were supposed to explain how that statement implied or supported that the fundamental laws of physics are changing... forgot about that did you?

BTW: Here's an interesting article... < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....riation >

There are 57 references.  I especially like this quote from the Wikipedia article



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional — the last period of similar magnitude occurred around 9,000 years ago (during the warm Boreal period).[29][30] The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years, and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.[30]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



References
Usoskin, I. G.; Solanki, S. K.; Kovaltsov, G. A. (2007). "Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints" (PDF). Astronomy & Astrophysics 471 (1): 301–309. Bibcode 2007A&A...471..301U. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077704. Retrieved 3 June 2011.

Solanki, Sami K.; Usoskin, Ilya G.; Kromer, Bernd; Schüssler, Manfred; Beer, Jürg (2004). "Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years" (PDF). Nature 431 (7012): 1084–7. Bibcode 2004Natur.431.1084S. doi:10.1038/nature02995. PMID 15510145. Retrieved 17 April 2007., "11,000 Year Sunspot Number Reconstruction". Global Change Master Directory. Retrieved 2005-03-11.

Whoops

"secret e-mails"... How did they do this in the 60s and 70s?

Oh never mind, just put on your tinfoil hat.

No, for, not ALL KINDS of stuff gets uplifted.  Only some stuff in very specific locations.

You are just randomly selecting a comment and then applying it to a totally different topic.  It's really funny how far you will go to avoid discussion, when you know you fracked up.  (BTW: What was exploding during the Big Bang?)

No, that's not what you said.  I said that oiil 'dudes' use geology because it works.  You claim that the geological science that they use on a daily basis is wrong.

Let's see, they are making billions of dollars per year, using my version of science... and no one makes a dime using yours.  Bye bye, thanks for playing.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 06 2011,20:40

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,17:57)
I’m, glad we agree that epigenetics is not evolution but whats so special about 1983 topicality?

Oh yeah, wasn’t that the year that atheistic concern trolls could finally cuss out Christians with keyboards and constitute trumped up tardicus topicality in order to suit me for some copy& paste lingo; like hipocriticos trying to save face while playing their mutationist bingo?

Well so sorry to spoil your willful illusions of supremacist grandeur preached to you by the two slave trade schools of anthropology and The Scopes Eugenics trial whom have been making man-made apemen since the Beagle took off to exploit foreign lands.

…and now with your Phylogenies showing chimps as more human than apes and African humans as closets to the apes, and ape-men with black skin and afros. Ha ha..its all politics. In fact the ape genome projects are all backed by liberal politicians with American tax dollars through sinister institutions with a long history of racists and homosexual and transhumanist’s agendas. A transhumanist agenda catapulted by the likes of Darwin and his cousin Galton, Margaret Sanger, The Rockefellers, and ecofeminists like Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh and her Time Warner sponsored Great Ape Trust.

Oh and the above is just one more reason that you bitterly feel that U.S. kids suck at everything
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, why was the idea of epigenetics even brought up again?  Oh yeah, because you somehow think it supports your idea of a designer.  

Can you keep a constant thought in your brain.  You made a specific claim.  I challenged you to research that claim and even gave you a hint (1983).  The fact that you don't even remember what my comment was about just indicates how little you care about knowledge.

I think I speak for everyone when I say WHAT! THE! FUCK!?????

You are absolutely right, if you are a product of the American education system... we are freaking screwed as a country.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 06 2011,22:00

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2011,20:27)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,17:45)
Peer reviewed? Who peer reviewed your " All U.S. kids suck at everything" quote; the anticreationists at Planned parenthood? Fyi, that study on mineral loss was done University of Texas and peer reviewed by The Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

Speaking of  fruits and vegetables, your cat and ostrich analysis is like comparing apples and oranges. The animals are designed for different activities but if you look at larger cat and ostrich ancestors their bones will not only be denser than modern representatives due to higher rates of nutrition and probably activity too but also stronger simply due to mass

Of coarse you deny the power of emotions, morality and consciousness. Special interest evolutionists feel a very deep desire feel all is relative
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmmm... It just crazier and crazier.  This is hilarious.

Did you actually read the article you linked to?  Please explain, in detail, how the following reasons for lower vegetable nutrition indicate a diminishing of fundamental laws of nature and/or sin.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

When asked about the apparent drain, commercial plant breeders refuse to comment, but clues have emerged as to why today's vegetables are not what they should be. It has to do with the way commercial growers do business.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Desirable traits for commercial growers who want produce to ship well, look good, and weigh a lot, but undesirable traits for consumers who buy produce as a source of nutrition. Plant jockeys call it "the dilution effect." More water and pith, less vitamin content.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Most commercial fruit, including tomatoes, is picked green. Green fruit doesn't have a chance to sun-ripen; it's artificially ripened with ethylene, a natural plant hormone. Ethylene is what causes tomatoes to turn pinkish. Produce deprived of sunlight doesn't have a chance to develop sunlight-related nutrients such as anthocyanins...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Other plant vitamins can also be affected by premature picking
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Changing climates, commercial fertilizers, and changes in soil composition have also been identified as reasons for the vitamin drain in commercial produce. Increasing carbon dioxide levels are known to significantly diminish important trace minerals, including zinc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There's more, but I'll stop there.  I expect an answer to the question.

BTW: Further evidence that US kids suck at science.  Reading and critical thinking are important in science, you seem to lack them.

I'm NOT comparing cats and ostriches... I'm comparing the relative density of the bone.  Again, a topic you brought up, then don't understand.  If you didn't mean bone density then you shouldn't have said it.

Quote me where I deny emotions, morals, and consciousness.  Go ahead, I'll wait.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Human sin and greed are leading to exactly what I said



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Changing climates, commercial fertilizers, and changes in soil composition have also been identified as reasons for the vitamin drain in commercial produce. Increasing carbon dioxide levels are known to significantly diminish important trace minerals, including zinc.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh and btw, sin actually has strong correlations to morality, emotions and conscience

Concerning bones, the original challenge was how animals and man were becoming less robust or with less bone density over time. First you tried  Homo floresiensis as as an attempt to prove of the opposite  compare two totally different critters, which just seems like more of same goalpost shifting that you constantly project on to me.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 06 2011,22:22

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2011,20:37)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,17:52)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2011,13:17)
Here is your e  
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,12:41)
If if the systems degrade [due to sin] as you say, it doesnt diminish the fact that thing or way different today. Plus you even admit that the forces makes huge leaps and drops.

Oh and again, what are you empirically calibrating this dating  technique to and why must they autonomously send the samples all over to "supposedly" prevent the abundantly prevalent fraud with these dating techniques? A few secret emails is the norm, I'm sure.

Again go look at a geological map like the dudes do and you will see that these so called eras are spread all over horizontally. Plus oil dudes often love anything that supports survival of the fittest corporate cronyism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) quote me, in context, as saying that forces make huge leaps and drops.  Explain how my comment (as referenced above) implies in any way, shape, or form that fundamental laws are changing.  (Hint, the force applied to a car when you lightly touch the gas pedal is much lower than when you press the pedal all the way to the floor.)

2) isochrons - look it up

 You still have not explained what the mechanism of the change in fundamental forces is that would cause radioactivity to change rates.  You still have not explained how this change continues to result in wildly different dating methods all returning the same age.  

3) Have you ever heard of 'uplift' or 'sinking'.

You are actually incorrect, oil dudes love anything that makes them money and geology does so.  What contributions have your notions made to the world?  None...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is your exact quote Ogre:"The amount of light hitting the Earth has changed... duh.
This is a well known phenomena that the sun goes through cycles of lowered and increased radiative output.  It is in no way evidence for or implying that any fundamental laws of the universe are changing."



Yes, I am the one who first brought up uplifting. All kinds of stuff gets uplifted and in often miraculously designed and derivatively designed ways

Um dude, thats about what I said about oil dudes too
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You didn't finish your work.  You were supposed to explain how that statement implied or supported that the fundamental laws of physics are changing... forgot about that did you?

BTW: Here's an interesting article... < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......riation >

There are 57 references.  I especially like this quote from the Wikipedia article



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional — the last period of similar magnitude occurred around 9,000 years ago (during the warm Boreal period).[29][30] The Sun was at a similarly high level of magnetic activity for only ~10% of the past 11,400 years, and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode.[30]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



References
Usoskin, I. G.; Solanki, S. K.; Kovaltsov, G. A. (2007). "Grand minima and maxima of solar activity: new observational constraints" (PDF). Astronomy & Astrophysics 471 (1): 301–309. Bibcode 2007A&A...471..301U. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20077704. Retrieved 3 June 2011.

Solanki, Sami K.; Usoskin, Ilya G.; Kromer, Bernd; Schüssler, Manfred; Beer, Jürg (2004). "Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years" (PDF). Nature 431 (7012): 1084–7. Bibcode 2004Natur.431.1084S. doi:10.1038/nature02995. PMID 15510145. Retrieved 17 April 2007., "11,000 Year Sunspot Number Reconstruction". Global Change Master Directory. Retrieved 2005-03-11.

Whoops

"secret e-mails"... How did they do this in the 60s and 70s?

Oh never mind, just put on your tinfoil hat.

No, for, not ALL KINDS of stuff gets uplifted.  Only some stuff in very specific locations.

You are just randomly selecting a comment and then applying it to a totally different topic.  It's really funny how far you will go to avoid discussion, when you know you fracked up.  (BTW: What was exploding during the Big Bang?)

No, that's not what you said.  I said that oiil 'dudes' use geology because it works.  You claim that the geological science that they use on a daily basis is wrong.

Let's see, they are making billions of dollars per year, using my version of science... and no one makes a dime using yours.  Bye bye, thanks for playing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where did I ever say the laws were changing. You dont have to change laws to make change. For instance, the human body, the earth, the solar system etc..

oh yes, all kinds of things get uplifted. Heck, Ive seen sand, coral, shells, fossils, rocks, minerals, gems, metals etc etc uplifted atop mountains. Ice, lava, and water get uplifted too

In the 60 and 70s, phone calls were fairly common

No, actually, I said that you didnt understand their geology or their geology maps but that they would probably like your survival of the fittest creed
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 06 2011,22:28

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2011,20:40)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,17:57)
I’m, glad we agree that epigenetics is not evolution but whats so special about 1983 topicality?

Oh yeah, wasn’t that the year that atheistic concern trolls could finally cuss out Christians with keyboards and constitute trumped up tardicus topicality in order to suit me for some copy& paste lingo; like hipocriticos trying to save face while playing their mutationist bingo?

Well so sorry to spoil your willful illusions of supremacist grandeur preached to you by the two slave trade schools of anthropology and The Scopes Eugenics trial whom have been making man-made apemen since the Beagle took off to exploit foreign lands.

…and now with your Phylogenies showing chimps as more human than apes and African humans as closets to the apes, and ape-men with black skin and afros. Ha ha..its all politics. In fact the ape genome projects are all backed by liberal politicians with American tax dollars through sinister institutions with a long history of racists and homosexual and transhumanist’s agendas. A transhumanist agenda catapulted by the likes of Darwin and his cousin Galton, Margaret Sanger, The Rockefellers, and ecofeminists like Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh and her Time Warner sponsored Great Ape Trust.

Oh and the above is just one more reason that you bitterly feel that U.S. kids suck at everything
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, why was the idea of epigenetics even brought up again?  Oh yeah, because you somehow think it supports your idea of a designer.  

Can you keep a constant thought in your brain.  You made a specific claim.  I challenged you to research that claim and even gave you a hint (1983).  The fact that you don't even remember what my comment was about just indicates how little you care about knowledge.

I think I speak for everyone when I say WHAT! THE! FUCK!?????

You are absolutely right, if you are a product of the American education system... we are freaking screwed as a country.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean your scopes trial evolutionism education system our the Christian education systems?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 06 2011,22:31

Oh yeah it was bright supernatural explosion
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 07 2011,06:54

I do some cobbling of my own.

Forastero:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Antediluvian world was described somewhat in the Bible. The Nephilim were destroying the environment and the megafauna, and each other but the lord preserved much of his magnificent creation for us in the fossil record.  It was fairly tropical in my opinion.  The ice age was after the flood. The earth has been  warming and many inland seas have been drying up since the ice age and humans have a lot of influence.

The explosions of life and ice ages are from your scriptures but explained that I'm a lumper and not a splitter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this...
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...is utter bullshit. These terms have no referents for you, given that you don't believe these eras to have existed. It follows that when you cite events in those eras as evidence of design (e.g. "explosions" that beg explanation)  you are uttering statements you believe to be false.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The [blah blah blah] was described somewhat in the Bible [blah blah blah]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So much for your initial sciencey lip service:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The practice of science involves formulating hypothesis that can be tested for falsifiability via observed data. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also deliberately misleading, as you don't give a shit about science. As one might expect, it was cobbled together by combining Wikipedia and Go.com definitions, without attribution.

< Wikipedia > on the null hypothesis:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< About.com > on theory in science:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, more bullshit from forastero, who endeavored to project a sciencey aura by means of cut and paste.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 07 2011,07:58

OK, he's lost it.

No content that even makes sense.

The ENTIRE point of YOUR discussion of changes in solar energy and vegetative loss of minerals and changes in bone density was that fundamental laws of physics were changing and that is why radiometric dating isn't valid.

At least I think that's what it was.  You've been really hard to follow.  You constantly conflate things that we have said with topics we're not discussing.  Your writing has gotten steadily worse over time.  

If you still want to talk, why don't you pick ONE topic, and we'll skip all the rest for later.

Why don't you remind us, what actually exploded to cause the Big bang?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,09:39

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,07:58)
OK, he's lost it.

No content that even makes sense.

The ENTIRE point of YOUR discussion of changes in solar energy and vegetative loss of minerals and changes in bone density was that fundamental laws of physics were changing and that is why radiometric dating isn't valid.

At least I think that's what it was.  You've been really hard to follow.  You constantly conflate things that we have said with topics we're not discussing.  Your writing has gotten steadily worse over time.  

If you still want to talk, why don't you pick ONE topic, and we'll skip all the rest for later.

Why don't you remind us, what actually exploded to cause the Big bang?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have. And as I said before, it wasnt just to challenge radiometric dating but your insistence on uniformitarianism. Oh and that bones show devolution.

Again has your body had the same force throughout its lifetime? Have the forces working on the grand canyon always been of the same strength? No, of course not. For instance, your own priests admit that the tectonic  and water forces were much stronger during the "Grand Canyon event". Moreover, the earth's internal heat has decreased over time as has hydrologic cycles.

Actually it was you who has gone off on so many tangents with your  bureaucratic lists of requests and definitions.

People who think science has really explained the earth's origins have often made science their religion and usually one that is pseudoempirically more silly than even Pan's pantheism

Maybe you no like how teacher write but when grasshopper fight with spite, teacher treat him like fly
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 07 2011,09:44

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,09:39)
You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And when can I expect the paper you'll no doubt be writing up on this significant new development to be published?

And where?

If you've indeed shown what you claim to have shown then your Nobel awaits....
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,09:56

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 07 2011,06:54)
I do some cobbling of my own.

Forastero:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Antediluvian world was described somewhat in the Bible. The Nephilim were destroying the environment and the megafauna, and each other but the lord preserved much of his magnificent creation for us in the fossil record.  It was fairly tropical in my opinion.  The ice age was after the flood. The earth has been  warming and many inland seas have been drying up since the ice age and humans have a lot of influence.

The explosions of life and ice ages are from your scriptures but explained that I'm a lumper and not a splitter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this...
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...is utter bullshit. These terms have no referents for you, given that you don't believe these eras to have existed. It follows that when you cite events in those eras as evidence of design (e.g. "explosions" that beg explanation)  you are uttering statements you believe to be false.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The [blah blah blah] was described somewhat in the Bible [blah blah blah]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So much for your initial sciencey lip service:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The practice of science involves formulating hypothesis that can be tested for falsifiability via observed data. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Also deliberately misleading, as you don't give a shit about science. As one might expect, it was cobbled together by combining Wikipedia and Go.com definitions, without attribution.

< Wikipedia > on the null hypothesis:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The practice of science involves formulating and testing hypotheses, assertions that are capable of being proven false using a test of observed data.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< About.com > on theory in science:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, more bullshit from forastero, who endeavored to project a sciencey aura by means of cut and paste.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First of all, I am correcting your cobbled creationism.

Secondly, what exactly is it about my definition that find misleading? It seems that you find offense with the "via observed data" part?

Thirdly, Wiki and About.com do quite a bit of internet cobbling so are you sure you know the better definition?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,10:05

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2011,09:44)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,09:39)
You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And when can I expect the paper you'll no doubt be writing up on this significant new development to be published?

And where?

If you've indeed shown what you claim to have shown then your Nobel awaits....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aha....did you snip that section of the post in order to avoid the two pertinent questions that followed?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 07 2011,10:14

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,09:39)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,07:58)
OK, he's lost it.

No content that even makes sense.

The ENTIRE point of YOUR discussion of changes in solar energy and vegetative loss of minerals and changes in bone density was that fundamental laws of physics were changing and that is why radiometric dating isn't valid.

At least I think that's what it was.  You've been really hard to follow.  You constantly conflate things that we have said with topics we're not discussing.  Your writing has gotten steadily worse over time.  

If you still want to talk, why don't you pick ONE topic, and we'll skip all the rest for later.

Why don't you remind us, what actually exploded to cause the Big bang?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have. And as I said before, it wasnt just to challenge radiometric dating but your insistence on uniformitarianism. Oh and that bones show devolution.

Again has your body had the same force throughout its lifetime? Have the forces working on the grand canyon always been of the same strength? No, of course not. For instance, your own priests admit that the tectonic  and water forces were much stronger during the "Grand Canyon event". Moreover, the earth's internal heat has decreased over time as has hydrologic cycles.

Actually it was you who has gone off on so many tangents with your  bureaucratic lists of requests and definitions.

People who think science has really explained the earth's origins have often made science their religion and usually one that is pseudoempirically more silly than even Pan's pantheism

Maybe you no like how teacher write but when grasshopper fight with spite, teacher treat him like fly
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have insisted on uniformantarianism only for those things with have been shown, over the observed history of the universe to NOT CHANGE.

For example, the decay rate of radioactive materials and the speed of light.  The energy released in H-H fusion.  None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so).

The things you mentioned (as I've said at least four times now) are all things that do change within the known laws of the universe and they do not imply or indicate that the known laws and constants of the universe are changing... which is what you must have in order to argue against the radiometric dating... which was your entire purpose.

All of the diversions and distractions are due to responses to your comments.

Sorry, dude, play concern troll all you want, but when you don't know the difference between a shark and a dinosaur, then it becomes necessary to ask for clarification.

I'm sorry if it offends you that we ask for clarification... not that you ever provide it anyway.

Tell us, forastero, what is your explanation for the origin of the Earth.

And remind me, what exactly, exploded to cause the Big Bang.

Yes, you are being very spiteful and as your teacher, we are annoyed by it.  You are being treated like a fly... actually a chew toy.  This is fun for most of us. I really hope you didn't think any of us were taking you seriously.

You see, you can argue, complain, whine, cry, argue, yell, conflate, obfuscate, confuse, etc. all you want.  It doesn't change the simple fact that science works.  They work for companies that are using the principles you claim are false to make money.  They work for physicians who use the principles you claim are false to save lives.  They work for millions (maybe even billions) of people every single day.

You can complain about it all you want.  But these principles simply work.  You will never be able to convince someone who has made billions of dollars and saved thousands of lives that the science they are using is wrong.  Because, it's not.

I'm sorry that you are confused.  I'm sorry that you will not learn what real science is.  And I'm sorry that you live in a fantasy world.  We can't help unless you want to be helped and it's pretty obvious you don't want to.

But, please continue to fling your poo.  Who knows something might stick... besides, I learn things from it... perhaps not what you think I should learn, but I still learn.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 07 2011,10:15

Am I supposed to believe that the fundamental constants and properties of the universe are changing just because you day so?

Without having dug into the matter, I presume that eV, Joule, Newton Volt, Ampere and all the rest are constant and do not change with time or distance.
Posted by: Kristine on Nov. 07 2011,10:17

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2011,09:44)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,09:39)
You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And when can I expect the paper you'll no doubt be writing up on this significant new development to be published?

And where?

If you've indeed shown what you claim to have shown then your Nobel awaits....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I pity the English 101 professor out there who somewhere had to wade through this glossolalia. I cannot make head or tails out of Pentheus here or his Caesar's word salad.

["Pan's pantheism," etc. What's next - Caligula's calligraphy?]
Posted by: Kristine on Nov. 07 2011,10:22

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:05)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2011,09:44)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,09:39)
You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And when can I expect the paper you'll no doubt be writing up on this significant new development to be published?

And where?

If you've indeed shown what you claim to have shown then your Nobel awaits....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aha....did you snip that section of the post in order to avoid the two pertinent questions that followed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, that's what they were? Questions? Because? they had? question marks after them?

Has my body had the same force during all of my lifetime? WTF? I may have changed my weight but I don't think that that "changes" the force of gravity, for example.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,10:26

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:14)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,09:39)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,07:58)
OK, he's lost it.

No content that even makes sense.

The ENTIRE point of YOUR discussion of changes in solar energy and vegetative loss of minerals and changes in bone density was that fundamental laws of physics were changing and that is why radiometric dating isn't valid.

At least I think that's what it was.  You've been really hard to follow.  You constantly conflate things that we have said with topics we're not discussing.  Your writing has gotten steadily worse over time.  

If you still want to talk, why don't you pick ONE topic, and we'll skip all the rest for later.

Why don't you remind us, what actually exploded to cause the Big bang?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have. And as I said before, it wasnt just to challenge radiometric dating but your insistence on uniformitarianism. Oh and that bones show devolution.

Again has your body had the same force throughout its lifetime? Have the forces working on the grand canyon always been of the same strength? No, of course not. For instance, your own priests admit that the tectonic  and water forces were much stronger during the "Grand Canyon event". Moreover, the earth's internal heat has decreased over time as has hydrologic cycles.

Actually it was you who has gone off on so many tangents with your  bureaucratic lists of requests and definitions.

People who think science has really explained the earth's origins have often made science their religion and usually one that is pseudoempirically more silly than even Pan's pantheism

Maybe you no like how teacher write but when grasshopper fight with spite, teacher treat him like fly
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have insisted on uniformantarianism only for those things with have been shown, over the observed history of the universe to NOT CHANGE.

For example, the decay rate of radioactive materials and the speed of light.  The energy released in H-H fusion.  None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so).

The things you mentioned (as I've said at least four times now) are all things that do change within the known laws of the universe and they do not imply or indicate that the known laws and constants of the universe are changing... which is what you must have in order to argue against the radiometric dating... which was your entire purpose.

All of the diversions and distractions are due to responses to your comments.

Sorry, dude, play concern troll all you want, but when you don't know the difference between a shark and a dinosaur, then it becomes necessary to ask for clarification.

I'm sorry if it offends you that we ask for clarification... not that you ever provide it anyway.

Tell us, forastero, what is your explanation for the origin of the Earth.

And remind me, what exactly, exploded to cause the Big Bang.

Yes, you are being very spiteful and as your teacher, we are annoyed by it.  You are being treated like a fly... actually a chew toy.  This is fun for most of us. I really hope you didn't think any of us were taking you seriously.

You see, you can argue, complain, whine, cry, argue, yell, conflate, obfuscate, confuse, etc. all you want.  It doesn't change the simple fact that science works.  They work for companies that are using the principles you claim are false to make money.  They work for physicians who use the principles you claim are false to save lives.  They work for millions (maybe even billions) of people every single day.

You can complain about it all you want.  But these principles simply work.  You will never be able to convince someone who has made billions of dollars and saved thousands of lives that the science they are using is wrong.  Because, it's not.

I'm sorry that you are confused.  I'm sorry that you will not learn what real science is.  And I'm sorry that you live in a fantasy world.  We can't help unless you want to be helped and it's pretty obvious you don't want to.

But, please continue to fling your poo.  Who knows something might stick... besides, I learn things from it... perhaps not what you think I should learn, but I still learn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,10:30

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 07 2011,10:15)
Am I supposed to believe that the fundamental constants and properties of the universe are changing just because you day so?

Without having dug into the matter, I presume that eV, Joule, Newton Volt, Ampere and all the rest are constant and do not change with time or distance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you working on the two questions in context yet?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,10:39

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 07 2011,10:22)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:05)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2011,09:44)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,09:39)
You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And when can I expect the paper you'll no doubt be writing up on this significant new development to be published?

And where?

If you've indeed shown what you claim to have shown then your Nobel awaits....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aha....did you snip that section of the post in order to avoid the two pertinent questions that followed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, that's what they were? Questions? Because? they had? question marks after them?

Has my body had the same force during all of my lifetime? WTF? I may have changed my weight but I don't think that that "changes" the force of gravity, for example.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Being that gravity is a geometric property of space and time, your weight is relative to exactly when and where you happen to be sitting
Posted by: khan on Nov. 07 2011,10:45

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 07 2011,11:17)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2011,09:44)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,09:39)
You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And when can I expect the paper you'll no doubt be writing up on this significant new development to be published?

And where?

If you've indeed shown what you claim to have shown then your Nobel awaits....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I pity the English 101 professor out there who somewhere had to wade through this glossolalia. I cannot make head or tails out of Pentheus here or his Caesar's word salad.

["Pan's pantheism," etc. What's next - Caligula's calligraphy?]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once it threw Margaret Sanger into the thesaurus/idea/conspiracy blender, we know that it is a creationist/fetus fetishist/tin foil hat... type critter.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,10:48

Quote (khan @ Nov. 07 2011,10:45)
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 07 2011,11:17)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2011,09:44)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,09:39)
You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And when can I expect the paper you'll no doubt be writing up on this significant new development to be published?

And where?

If you've indeed shown what you claim to have shown then your Nobel awaits....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I pity the English 101 professor out there who somewhere had to wade through this glossolalia. I cannot make head or tails out of Pentheus here or his Caesar's word salad.

["Pan's pantheism," etc. What's next - Caligula's calligraphy?]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once it threw Margaret Sanger into the thesaurus/idea/conspiracy blender, we know that it is a creationist/fetus fetishist/tin foil hat... type critter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you saying that Sanger wasnt powerfully influenced by the Darwin family? Are you saying that she was racists eugenicists hell bent on creating a "new race"?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 07 2011,10:49

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:39)
Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 07 2011,10:22)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:05)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2011,09:44)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,09:39)
You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And when can I expect the paper you'll no doubt be writing up on this significant new development to be published?

And where?

If you've indeed shown what you claim to have shown then your Nobel awaits....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aha....did you snip that section of the post in order to avoid the two pertinent questions that followed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, that's what they were? Questions? Because? they had? question marks after them?

Has my body had the same force during all of my lifetime? WTF? I may have changed my weight but I don't think that that "changes" the force of gravity, for example.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Being that gravity is a geometric property of space and time, your weight is relative to exactly when and where you happen to be sitting
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh dear, this is not what is meant by a change in a fundamental force, which any self aware IDiot should know.

Such a change in a fundamental force of gravity would be a change in the gravitational constant.  You know what a constant is, don't you?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,10:50

I mean are you saying that Sanger was not a racists eugenicists hell bent on creating a "new race"?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 07 2011,10:50

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 07 2011,11:01

forastero,

How old is the Earth (give or take a couple 10 round bouts of sweaty wrestlers)?

-blipey
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,11:08

Tracy, there is a solar constant too but even your Ogre agrees solar forces have gone through "lowered radiative output". Moreover, no one has yet to quote me saying or indicating that "laws" change so they are just playing semantics; but the interpretation of laws are modified and Einstein's expansion on Newton's Law of Gravity is a case in point.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 07 2011,11:18

I was thinking of invoking the Jefferson quote-- "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions"--against Forastero's babbling, but I think he's going to need a proposition first. Nonetheless I think that any time the "WERE YOU THERE???" question is asked, it's OK for the ridicule to commence.
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 07 2011,11:23

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:08)
Tracy, there is a solar constant too but even your Ogre agrees solar forces have gone through "lowered radiative output". Moreover, no one has yet to quote me saying or indicating that "laws" change so they are just playing semantics; but the interpretation of laws are modified and Einstein's expansion on Newton's Law of Gravity is a case in point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What an interesting dictionary you have in your head.  Einstein did not "expand" Newton's Law of Gravity.  He radically altered the way we think about gravity by introducing a completely novel concept.

You'd get along better if you used words the way everyone else does.  Just saying.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,11:30

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 07 2011,11:38

I need to put in what forestero is responding to, it seems he felt it unimportant:

OgreMKV said
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Has my body had the same force during all of my lifetime? WTF? I may have changed my weight but I don't think that that "changes" the force of gravity, for example.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



forastero replied
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Being that gravity is a geometric property of space and time, your weight is relative to exactly when and where you happen to be sitting

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Moi said
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh dear, this is not what is meant by a change in a fundamental force, which any self aware IDiot should know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So forastero doubles down on the IDiocy...

 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:08)
Tracy, there is a solar constant too but even your Ogre agrees solar forces have gone through "lowered radiative output". Moreover, no one has yet to quote me saying or indicating that "laws" change so they are just playing semantics; but the interpretation of laws are modified and Einstein's expansion on Newton's Law of Gravity is a case in point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apparently you do not understand what constant means.

The solar constant is an integration of the electromagnetic spectrum (which produces a single number) that can be used in place of using the distribution of electromagnetic radiation. In other words, the mathematical meaning of constant in integration, not a constant of nature.

The universal law of gravitation has equations and constants, so a change in the "force" could be a change in the fundamental constant without a change in the mathematical expression, so all that is required is quoting you saying that fundamental forces have changed:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which of course are not fundamental forces, but we already you knew were an IDiot before that.

QED
Posted by: ppb on Nov. 07 2011,11:46

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,12:30)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's talking about the universe as a whole.  With modern astronomical instruments we can see what was happening almost as far back as the Big Bang.  With my own two eyes I can go out at night and see stuff that happened millions of years ago.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 07 2011,11:48

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:56)
First of all, I am correcting your cobbled creationism.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A non-response.

You have asserted that particular events ("explosions") have occurred during specific eras and epochs, events you claimed demand an explanation, namely design. You cited those events as evidence of design.

You subsequently indicated that you do not believe those eras and epochs existed at all - that terms such as "eocene" and "silurian" refer to a timeline that is wholly mistaken and have no referents at all.  

Therefore your initial assertion is at best unintelligible and at worst an argument you believed to be false when you made it. Perhaps both.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Secondly, what exactly is it about my definition that find misleading? It seems that you find offense with the "via observed data" part?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You opened your participation here with a patter of science-talk, namely the quoted passage, obviously an attempt to establish some credibility vis the scientific enterprise.

Not only does your subsequent participation demonstrate that attempt at impression-management to have been false and misleading (you obviously don't give a shit about science), your willingness to pass off a plagiarized passage as your own sciencey patter again demonstrates the fundamentally dishonest approach you bring to this discussion.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,11:48

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 07 2011,11:23)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:08)
Tracy, there is a solar constant too but even your Ogre agrees solar forces have gone through "lowered radiative output". Moreover, no one has yet to quote me saying or indicating that "laws" change so they are just playing semantics; but the interpretation of laws are modified and Einstein's expansion on Newton's Law of Gravity is a case in point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What an interesting dictionary you have in your head.  Einstein did not "expand" Newton's Law of Gravity.  He radically altered the way we think about gravity by introducing a completely novel concept.

You'd get along better if you used words the way everyone else does.  Just saying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you saying that Newton's laws or interpretations are not valid and why not?

"Let no one suppose, however, that the mighty work of Newton can really be superceded by relativity or any other theory. His great and lucid ideas will retain their unique significance for all time as the foundation of our whole modern conceptual structure in the sphere of natural philosophy" by Albert Einstein

“To the Master's honor all must turn, each in its track, without a sound, forever tracing Newton's ground.” by Albert Einstein

Newton discovered all kinds of things much from scratch, including various laws. Einstein merely extended upon Newton's gravity.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 07 2011,11:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...your willingness to pass off a plagiarized passage as your own sciencey patter again demonstrates the fundamentally dishonest approach you bring to this discussion.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[News Barker]

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Read all about it! Creationist argues in bad faith and dishonestly, shocker! Hitherto incredibly frequently observed event occurs yet again! Things basically as normal! Read all about it!

[/News Barker]

Louis
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,11:58

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,11:38)
I need to put in what forestero is responding to, it seems he felt it unimportant:

OgreMKV said
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Has my body had the same force during all of my lifetime? WTF? I may have changed my weight but I don't think that that "changes" the force of gravity, for example.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



forastero replied
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Being that gravity is a geometric property of space and time, your weight is relative to exactly when and where you happen to be sitting

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Moi said
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh dear, this is not what is meant by a change in a fundamental force, which any self aware IDiot should know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So forastero doubles down on the IDiocy...

 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:08)
Tracy, there is a solar constant too but even your Ogre agrees solar forces have gone through "lowered radiative output". Moreover, no one has yet to quote me saying or indicating that "laws" change so they are just playing semantics; but the interpretation of laws are modified and Einstein's expansion on Newton's Law of Gravity is a case in point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Apparently you do not understand what constant means.

The solar constant is an integration of the electromagnetic spectrum (which produces a single number) that can be used in place of using the distribution of electromagnetic radiation. In other words, the mathematical meaning of constant in integration, not a constant of nature.

The universal law of gravitation has equations and constants, so a change in the "force" could be a change in the fundamental constant without a change in the mathematical expression, so all that is required is quoting you saying that fundamental forces have changed:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Then you insisted that no fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time and I countered with:

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Which of course are not fundamental forces, but we already you knew were an IDiot before that.

QED
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First off, you are confusing Kristine with Ogre

Second of all, I didnt define solar "constant" but rather compared the term with gravitational "constant" in order to reveal that the term didnt mean that there were were no changes in force.

Thus, more semantic straws
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 07 2011,12:15

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:30)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, that's right.  Over the observed history of the universe, none of the fundamental forces have altered.  The weak nuclear force is exactly the same as it was 13 billion years ago.  How do we know?  Because suns still exist.

The output of the suns change over time.  The size of suns change over time (BTW: Most get larger and increase energy output, not smaller with weaker output).  But none of that is relevant to the weak nuclear force... which is both responsible for H-H fusion in stars AND radioactive decay.

To say that radioactive decay can change, then you must also say that the weak nuclear force can change and the consequence is that suns, at some point in the past, couldn't have existed.  (Let's wait and see if he figures this out :)

Please note, that the change in the value of A force does not mean that the force itself changes.  I can type gently or put so much force on the keyboard that it shatters.  This does not in any way change the simple fact that F = ma.

Yes, my concern troll is incoherent because I was using a faulty definition.  However, you (as shown by Bill) are still a concern troll in the classic definition of the word.

You are also trolling for emotional content because your ideas are somehow being oppressed because of a global conspiracy amongst low paid scientists to destroy religion.

This is, of course, an idiotic statement.  Even if it was true, it would have failed miserably.

Anywhoodle... you've lost it.  Did you run out of medication over the last few days?
Posted by: Kristine on Nov. 07 2011,12:26

Quote (ppb @ Nov. 07 2011,11:46)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,12:30)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's talking about the universe as a whole.  With modern astronomical instruments we can see what was happening almost as far back as the Big Bang.  With my own two eyes I can go out at night and see stuff that happened millions of years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, you did not see the green shag rug covering the pit in the jungle floor, did you Tarzan? Said light was created in transit to earth, and so is much younger than said billions or even millions of years!

Just like Adam and Eve were created as adults, not infants, or zygotes. ;)

Bringing it all back to uniformitarianism, we seem to have here a modern-day (?) Richard Kirwan denouncing we James Huttons. Can Velikovsky be far behind?
Posted by: ppb on Nov. 07 2011,12:43

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 07 2011,13:26)
Quote (ppb @ Nov. 07 2011,11:46)
   
He's talking about the universe as a whole.  With modern astronomical instruments we can see what was happening almost as far back as the Big Bang.  With my own two eyes I can go out at night and see stuff that happened millions of years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, you did not see the green shag rug covering the pit in the jungle floor, did you Tarzan? Said light was created in transit to earth, and so is much younger than said billions or even millions of years!

Just like Adam and Eve were created as adults, not infants, or zygotes. ;)

Bringing it all back to uniformitarianism, we seem to have here a modern-day (?) Richard Kirwan denouncing we James Huttons. Can Velikovsky be far behind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, except we get to see Adam and Eve as zygotes.  The creationists who try to use the "created in transit" argument are making their god out to be a liar.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 07 2011,12:50

Oh, that opens up so many fun questions.  Reminds me of the AFDave threads.

I'm not surprised he's confused.  He thinks that the sun's output of energy (not force) is directly caused by changes in the weak nuclear force.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 07 2011,12:51

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:05)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2011,09:44)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,09:39)
You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And when can I expect the paper you'll no doubt be writing up on this significant new development to be published?

And where?

If you've indeed shown what you claim to have shown then your Nobel awaits....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Aha....did you snip that section of the post in order to avoid the two pertinent questions that followed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Erm, no?  It would be pointless to go on to other topics, if you can't even deal with very fundamental ideas like fundamental forces, preferring to pull arguments from your fundament like a fundamentalist.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 07 2011,12:53

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,11:50)
What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr

don't act like it's your first date
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,12:59

Quote (ppb @ Nov. 07 2011,11:46)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,12:30)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's talking about the universe as a whole.  With modern astronomical instruments we can see what was happening almost as far back as the Big Bang.  With my own two eyes I can go out at night and see stuff that happened millions of years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First off, research "relativity" but while keeping in mind what Einstein chimed about finite minds with a geosolarcentric ax to grind.

Secondly and like sun worshipers of the past, your priests are notorious for insisting on interpretations about things and with things that the so called commoners/layman dont have access to. For instance, so called solar forces coming down to them from the havens to make mutant spaghetti monsters from the primordial fountains of soup whom they are in commune through  radiomagic wands, crystal ball chronologies, new age ape animism, phylogenic rites, and through sacred lenses.

Transsexual pharaoh to seek the sun god visions that only he can receive.
< http://wysinger.homestead.com/akh18_o....800.jpg >

Priests passing visions of old, dark and oblique with the help of a demonic sphinx to control the sheople who sleep.
< http://www.crystalinks.com/egyptra....ray.gif >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 07 2011,13:01

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 07 2011,11:17)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2011,09:44)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,09:39)
You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And when can I expect the paper you'll no doubt be writing up on this significant new development to be published?

And where?

If you've indeed shown what you claim to have shown then your Nobel awaits....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I pity the English 101 professor out there who somewhere had to wade through this glossolalia. I cannot make head or tails out of Pentheus here or his Caesar's word salad.

["Pan's pantheism," etc. What's next - Caligula's calligraphy?]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I recommend Lenny's Flank
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 07 2011,13:08

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 07 2011,12:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...your willingness to pass off a plagiarized passage as your own sciencey patter again demonstrates the fundamentally dishonest approach you bring to this discussion.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[News Barker]

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Read all about it! Creationist argues in bad faith and dishonestly, shocker! Hitherto incredibly frequently observed event occurs yet again! Things basically as normal! Read all about it!

[/News Barker]

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


RB screwed him into the corner with that, precisely concisely and very politely and nicely.  

this idiot doesn't give a shit about anything other than unitards headlocks and jock straps.

hey sweatheart you can't call the steps fiddle the tunes and lead the dance at the same time.  try the ricin
Posted by: DaveH on Nov. 07 2011,13:26

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,18:13)
...but her boss was putting negative pressure on her from the get go. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.” Jack Horner--Smithsonian Magazine May 2000. Sure they are going to dismiss her work and force her to retract. They did the same thing when they stomped all over Woodward's dinosaur bone DNA found in the coal mine.
< http://discovermagazine.com/2006.......aur-dna >

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
It’s a girl … and she’s pregnant! Because the dinosaur tissues didn’t look exactly like pictures published of medullary bone in living birds like chicken and quail, Schweitzer’s team compared the tissue from the femur of the T. rex to that taken from leg bones of more primitive ratites, or flightless birds, such as ostriches and emus. These birds share more features with dinosaurs than other present-day birds. They selected an ostrich and an emu in different stages of their laying cycles, when medullary bone is present.

Oh and btw not even mineralized impression fossils couldnt last in such a fine state over so called millions of years of uplift

again you scoffing without reading
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Simply off the top of my head, two of 4-Arse's examples are ludicrous:
"Now see if you can find some evidence that that's not what they are" is not "dismissing her work", it's the scientific method ffs! Take a look at Louis' sig-line quote from Feynman, read and inwardly digest.

Also, medullary bone in birds is just that...bone. An excess bone deposit in the medullary cavity of the long-bones of female birds which acts as a store for calcium that is therefore available as a reservoir during certain parts of the breeding cycle as a source for the extra mineral needed to lay down eggshell.


again you bloviating without reading, and certainly without beginning to understand what you are cutting and pasting.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,13:35

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,12:15)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:30)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, that's right.  Over the observed history of the universe, none of the fundamental forces have altered.  The weak nuclear force is exactly the same as it was 13 billion years ago.  How do we know?  Because suns still exist.

The output of the suns change over time.  The size of suns change over time (BTW: Most get larger and increase energy output, not smaller with weaker output).  But none of that is relevant to the weak nuclear force... which is both responsible for H-H fusion in stars AND radioactive decay.

To say that radioactive decay can change, then you must also say that the weak nuclear force can change and the consequence is that suns, at some point in the past, couldn't have existed.  (Let's wait and see if he figures this out :)

Please note, that the change in the value of A force does not mean that the force itself changes.  I can type gently or put so much force on the keyboard that it shatters.  This does not in any way change the simple fact that F = ma.

Yes, my concern troll is incoherent because I was using a faulty definition.  However, you (as shown by Bill) are still a concern troll in the classic definition of the word.

You are also trolling for emotional content because your ideas are somehow being oppressed because of a global conspiracy amongst low paid scientists to destroy religion.

This is, of course, an idiotic statement.  Even if it was true, it would have failed miserably.

Anywhoodle... you've lost it.  Did you run out of medication over the last few days?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually not all suns still exist and decay rates can be altered and do change

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.”

Your Wiki might help

Changing decay rates                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Changing_decay_rates

The radioactive decay modes of electron capture and internal conversion are known to be slightly sensitive to chemical and environmental effects which change the electronic structure of the atom, which in turn affects the presence of 1s and 2s electrons that participate in the decay process. Recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a weak dependence (0.5% or less) on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54, and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (of the order of 0.1%), proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or distance from the sun.[8][9][10] However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper[11] has found no evidence for such correlations in six other isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.

The strong nuclear force, not observed at the familiar macroscopic scale, is the most powerful force over subatomic distances. The electrostatic force is almost always significant, and, in the case of beta decay, the weak nuclear force is also involved.

Such a collapse (a decay event) requires a specific activation energy.. In the case of an excited atomic nucleus, the arbitrarily small disturbance comes from quantum vacuum fluctuations. A radioactive nucleus (or any excited system in quantum mechanics) is unstable, and can, thus, spontaneously stabilize to a less-excited system. The resulting transformation alters the structure of the nucleus and results in the emission of either a photon or a high-velocity particle that has mass (such as an electron, alpha particle, or other type).  Random quantum vacuum fluctuations are theorized to promote relaxation to a lower energy state (the "decay") in a phenomenon known as quantum tunneling. The Quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,13:41

Oh and Ogre, I dont think that I said: "to destroy religion" "by low paid scientists" but then you yourself have actually convinced me that that too is often true. Its more about ecofeminist under primordial influences
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,13:46

Quote (DaveH @ Nov. 07 2011,13:26)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,18:13)
...but her boss was putting negative pressure on her from the get go. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.” Jack Horner--Smithsonian Magazine May 2000. Sure they are going to dismiss her work and force her to retract. They did the same thing when they stomped all over Woodward's dinosaur bone DNA found in the coal mine.
< http://discovermagazine.com/2006.......aur-dna >

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
It’s a girl … and she’s pregnant! Because the dinosaur tissues didn’t look exactly like pictures published of medullary bone in living birds like chicken and quail, Schweitzer’s team compared the tissue from the femur of the T. rex to that taken from leg bones of more primitive ratites, or flightless birds, such as ostriches and emus. These birds share more features with dinosaurs than other present-day birds. They selected an ostrich and an emu in different stages of their laying cycles, when medullary bone is present.

Oh and btw not even mineralized impression fossils couldnt last in such a fine state over so called millions of years of uplift

again you scoffing without reading
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Simply off the top of my head, two of 4-Arse's examples are ludicrous:
"Now see if you can find some evidence that that's not what they are" is not "dismissing her work", it's the scientific method ffs! Take a look at Louis' sig-line quote from Feynman, read and inwardly digest.

Also, medullary bone in birds is just that...bone. An excess bone deposit in the medullary cavity of the long-bones of female birds which acts as a store for calcium that is therefore available as a reservoir during certain parts of the breeding cycle as a source for the extra mineral needed to lay down eggshell.


again you bloviating without reading, and certainly without beginning to understand what you are cutting and pasting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha...Those were the scientists quotes that you cut up. Not my own
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 07 2011,14:14

Ah, so decays that can be triggered by the presence of an electron in the nucleus can become more frequent when the atoms are under intense pressure.

I'm inclined to think that physicists would have thought of this already, and would avoid use of decay chains that would be significantly impacted by that effect.

I'm also inclined to doubt that decays on or near the surface of the Earth would not be noticeably impacted by this; to get pressure enough to cause that effect one would need to look way below the surface.

That's my two cents on that.

Henry
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 07 2011,14:33

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:41)
Oh and Ogre, I dont think that I said: "to destroy religion" "by low paid scientists" but then you yourself have actually convinced me that that too is often true. Its more about ecofeminist under primordial influences
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.  Of course you didn't 'say' it.  You never actually 'say' anything where someone could come back on you for it.

What is it that exploded to cause the Big Bang and what is your estimate of the Age of the Earth?

You heavily implied it though... straight from the talking points of the crazed fundie conspiracy creationist pamphlet.

I have another question for you to avoid... do you actually think any of this is new?

Do you actually think that over the last 60 years of radiometric dating, no one has noticed that there MIGHT be some seasonal variation in decay rates?

My research shows that the decay rate varies based on the sun.  The rotation of the solar core AND the distance from the Earth to the sun.

So, first of all, it's cyclical... meaning that over time, it will average out.

Second, I don't see radium, manganese, or silicon on the list of radioactive dating methods.  So, you'll need to provide evidence that all methods are affected this way.

Third, let's say that it does alter the decay rate by .37%.  Let's say that is a permanent change.  That means the error for the age of the Earth is off by 14.4 millions years (using potassium-argon) and less than 18,000 years using uranium-thorium.

Doesn't actually help that much... does it.

Oh and don't forget that it actually has to affect all the radiometric dating methods differently since they all point to the same age.

St. Severin (ordinary chondrite)

   Pb-Pb isochron - 4.543 +/- 0.019 GY
   Sm-Nd isochron - 4.55 +/- 0.33 GY
   Rb-Sr isochron - 4.51 +/- 0.15 GY
   Re-Os isochron - 4.68 +/- 0.15 GY


Oh, BTW: This still doesn't imply or indicate that there is a fundamental change in the weak nuclear force.  What is does imply is that there is something going on that we don't really understand.  Is it solar neutrinos?  Maybe.  heck, maybe it's cold, dark matter... or dark energy.  

On the other hand, I do have confidence that science will figure it out in short order and be able to calculate the effects of this phenomenon (which may or may not actually exist).  On the other hand, I also have complete confidence that no creationists will figure this out.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 07 2011,14:39

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:35)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,12:15)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:30)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, that's right.  Over the observed history of the universe, none of the fundamental forces have altered.  The weak nuclear force is exactly the same as it was 13 billion years ago.  How do we know?  Because suns still exist.

The output of the suns change over time.  The size of suns change over time (BTW: Most get larger and increase energy output, not smaller with weaker output).  But none of that is relevant to the weak nuclear force... which is both responsible for H-H fusion in stars AND radioactive decay.

To say that radioactive decay can change, then you must also say that the weak nuclear force can change and the consequence is that suns, at some point in the past, couldn't have existed.  (Let's wait and see if he figures this out :)

Please note, that the change in the value of A force does not mean that the force itself changes.  I can type gently or put so much force on the keyboard that it shatters.  This does not in any way change the simple fact that F = ma.

Yes, my concern troll is incoherent because I was using a faulty definition.  However, you (as shown by Bill) are still a concern troll in the classic definition of the word.

You are also trolling for emotional content because your ideas are somehow being oppressed because of a global conspiracy amongst low paid scientists to destroy religion.

This is, of course, an idiotic statement.  Even if it was true, it would have failed miserably.

Anywhoodle... you've lost it.  Did you run out of medication over the last few days?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually not all suns still exist and decay rates can be altered and do change

The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha.  He figured it out.

BTW: What rule of chemistry is this breaking?  Just out of curiosity, what are ALL of the rules of chemistry?

In other words, how do we know it's breaking a rule, when we don't know all the rules?  I'm sure you have deep insight into this.

Isn't it curious that you won't allow us to subject your own notions on life, the universe, and everything to the same scrutiny that you are subjecting ours to?  Why is that?  What have you to hide?

We've only been asking for a while now.

BTW: What actually exploded to cause the Big Bang?
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 07 2011,14:43

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:59)
Secondly and like sun worshipers of the past, your priests are notorious for insisting on interpretations about things and with things that the so called commoners/layman dont have access to. For instance, so called solar forces coming down to them from the havens to make mutant spaghetti monsters from the primordial fountains of soup whom they are in commune through  radiomagic wands, crystal ball chronologies, new age ape animism, phylogenic rites, and through sacred lenses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wow.  So many words, so little meaning.

Any idea where I can get a primordial fountain of soup, muppet?  I like soup.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 07 2011,14:43

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:58)
 
First off, you are confusing Kristine with Ogre

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



whooptidoo!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Second of all, I didnt define solar "constant" but rather compared the term with gravitational "constant" in order to reveal that the term didnt mean that there were were no changes in force.

Thus, more semantic straws
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



They are different kinds of constants, which makes it ESSENTIAL that you realize that they are not the same.
Only an IDiot would try to argue that they are even comparable.    This is not "semantic straws", but comprehension of very basic science that a high school student knows.   Read the wikipedia entry you get when you search "fundamental constant" and try to understand it.  Do not cut and paste it and pass it off as your own understanding, we already know what it says and what it means.  Next time someone uses the term fundamental force, realize that there are 4 (maybe 5), and don't talk about irrelevancies which make you look more stupid the more times you repeat them.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 07 2011,14:58

Cut and paste IDiot strikes again!

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:35)
 

The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
< http://io9.com/5619954....emistry >

{quote deleted}

Your Wiki might help

{snipped to get to the part that contradicts the argument right above}

However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper[11] has found no evidence for such correlations in six other isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have contradicted yourself.  I think it is because you are clueless.  You are not ready for such subtleties as the distinction of spontaneous vs stimulated radioactivity.
Posted by: David Holland on Nov. 07 2011,18:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you explain isochron dating and tell me why it is wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You didn't respond to this.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just google things like Cambrian ice age or Jurassic ice age etc
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can find no information on a Jurassic ice age. Can you tell me something about it?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again,They are not stacked on top of each other
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes they are. Wow, unsupported assertion is soo easy. The Grand Canyon is an example of differnt geological time periods stacked vertically. You should read up on it.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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-------------------


Either they are in the same layer or they aren't. If they aren't in the same rock layer how know they lived at the same time?
Posted by: DaveH on Nov. 07 2011,18:12

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:46)
Ha...Those were the scientists quotes that you cut up. Not my own
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Precisely.
I simply pointed out that you have no idea what those scientists meant, and how they negated your "point" or were utterly irrelevant to it.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 07 2011,18:38

I still don't get you, Forastero. Here's why. You said:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You said that forces have not changed over time and I showed you that they have. And as I said before, it wasnt just to challenge radiometric dating but your insistence on uniformitarianism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In other words, among your goals was a challenge radiometric dating. And, of course, the reason you wish to challenge the reliability of radiometric dating is because of your embrace of flood mythology, and your corresponding rejection of the contemporary scientific understanding of the earth's history across deep time.  

In challenging radiometric dating, you cite the phenomenon of decay rates changing in response to environmental conditions. Your own reference (a Wikipedia article) states the following:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a weak dependence (0.5% or less) on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54, and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (of the order of 0.1%), proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or distance from the sun.[8][9][10]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let us grant the 0.5% number, arguendo (although your own reference also states that a number of experiments indicate that decay rates are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by external conditions).

That moves the onset of the Triassic from 2.5 million centuries in the past to ~2.48 million centuries in the past. It moves the onset of the Jurassic from ~1.996 million centuries in the past to ~1.98 million centuries. And it moves the end of the Cretaceous from 655,000 centuries in the past to 651,725 centuries in the past.

So, does the Wikipedia article you cite support your rejection of the standard chronology, and support your notion of antediluvian and post-flood eco-zones, or does it not support the rejection of your imaginary chronology and support, in large measure, the standard chronology, even granting a contraction of the timeline by 0.5 percent?

ETA: Oh, entering into your frame of reference, when was the flood? You didn't say.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,18:42

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,14:58)
Cut and paste IDiot strikes again!

 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:35)
 

The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
< http://io9.com/5619954....emistry >

{quote deleted}

Your Wiki might help

{snipped to get to the part that contradicts the argument right above}

However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper[11] has found no evidence for such correlations in six other isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have contradicted yourself.  I think it is because you are clueless.  You are not ready for such subtleties as the distinction of spontaneous vs stimulated radioactivity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whoa  why you mixing and matching to make a 2009 study appear as subsequent to the 2010 Stanford/Purdue study that my quote I first mentioned?
Power spectrum analyses of nuclear decay rates Volume 34, Issue 3, October 2010, < http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....0001234 >

Not only that, but that 2009 article mentioned in wiki didnt all together dismiss the variation found in the other three wiki articles but rather the mechanism hypothesized to cause the variation in different kinds of isotopes.
Norman, E. B.; et al. (2009). "Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance"
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,18:55

Quote (DaveH @ Nov. 07 2011,18:12)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:46)
Ha...Those were the scientists quotes that you cut up. Not my own
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Precisely.
I simply pointed out that you have no idea what those scientists meant, and how they negated your "point" or were utterly irrelevant to it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My point was the Big News about soft tissues that you think are older than that devil Zeus
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,19:19

Quote (David Holland @ Nov. 07 2011,18:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you explain isochron dating and tell me why it is wrong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You didn't respond to this.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just google things like Cambrian ice age or Jurassic ice age etc
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can find no information on a Jurassic ice age. Can you tell me something about it?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again,They are not stacked on top of each other
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes they are. Wow, unsupported assertion is soo easy. The Grand Canyon is an example of differnt geological time periods stacked vertically. You should read up on it.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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-------------------


Either they are in the same layer or they aren't. If they aren't in the same rock layer how know they lived at the same time?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah I did

Why you calling Cambrian critters on mountain tops "stacked"  Sounds more like a stacked deck. Oh and mount st Hellenes has stacks that look just like your stacked deck but they appeared in minutes

See, no stacking
< http://large.stanford.edu/publica....ogy.jpg >

We know the Grand Canyon was covered by a mega flood and experienced a time of vastly greater than normal erosion but it also has many similarities to rift valleys such as a much more earthquakes than other areas, rift like cracks, horst graben patterns, faults, hundreds upon thousands of fault lines ( old and new ), volcanoes, uplift,  lava flows, etc etc

In various parts of the world, fairly large rifts are quickly opening and closing and even new mountains are forming so the Grand Canyon is consistent with these but on a larger scale when tectonic activities were known to have much more energy..

Dragon lore and dragon depictions are to much like dinosaurs to be fiction
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,19:23

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,17:47)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,01:35)
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:29)
Flat earth ...

Isaiah 11:12  
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Proverbs 8:27-  When he prepared the heavens, I was there, When he drew a circle on the face of the deep

Isaiah 40:22-  It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it's inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Also unmoving:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

I wont even start on the firmanent and vaults of heaven
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Hebrew Bible uses poems  consistent with  the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, such as in the Enuma Elish, which described a circular earth surrounded by water above and below, as illustrated by references to the "foundations of the earth" and the "circle of the earth. In numerous passages, the bible refers to the earth as a campus in relation to night and day, boundaries and winds (easterlies, northerlies etc) so the four corners or "wings" logically means north, south, east and west. For instance Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Nebuchadnezzar was in a prophetic dream-time state and thus able to see the earth from afar and seeing the ends of the continents.  

Likewise, in  Mathew, even if Satan can see through solid earth, his best vantage point to see, accuse, and influence all of the kingdoms would logically be from a distance like a "angel of [false] light" (imagine a parabolic beam), hence the name "prince of the power of the air". This is why there are so many depiction  of ancient gods giving of conic and oblique powers

Early Church fathers like Augustine and Constantine’s tutor Lactantius believed in a spherical earth. The early Christian also often depicted symbols of Christ over the sphere of the earth or angels holding a spherical earth.

The flat earth ties to Christians was based mostly on lies by bible hating humanists like John W. Draper and Andrew Dickson White   Russell, J. B. 1997. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback, Westport, Conn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you are saying while everybody else around them thought the world was flat, the early Jews knew it was spherical and instead of saying that our God told us that the earth is a sphere, they used the same flat earth language but only meant it metaphorically. Well explain then why we can't assert that they knew that the universe is 13 billion years old and the whole 7 day thing and the flood is metaphorical as well?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No they didnt all use a flat earth anology
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,19:37

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2011,23:25)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,22:56)
Calibration in radiometric dating is comparing dates with another accepted date like with tree rings or historic records

isochon dating calibrates itself with isochron datings
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not that there'd be anything wrong with isochrons validating isochrons--the physics is well-established--but that ignorant claim is just not true:

< Cyclostratigraphy confirms radiometric dating past 100 million years >

And there's really no question that the sun can't be enormously older or younger than around four and a half billion years.

As for the flood, evaporite deposits could hardly result from a flood, nor is the enormous amount of bioturbation, including huge numbers of worm burrows, consistent with any flood.  Not that creationists care about actual evidence.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Contamination is a big problem but I'll also pick on your best Cyclostratigraphy

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.

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
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 07 2011,19:48

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 07 2011,18:08)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 07 2011,12:56)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...your willingness to pass off a plagiarized passage as your own sciencey patter again demonstrates the fundamentally dishonest approach you bring to this discussion.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[News Barker]

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Read all about it! Creationist argues in bad faith and dishonestly, shocker! Hitherto incredibly frequently observed event occurs yet again! Things basically as normal! Read all about it!

[/News Barker]

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


RB screwed him into the corner with that, precisely concisely and very politely and nicely.  

this idiot doesn't give a shit about anything other than unitards headlocks and jock straps.

hey sweatheart you can't call the steps fiddle the tunes and lead the dance at the same time.  try the ricin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this really is GoP?

I feel dirty.

Louis
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 07 2011,20:09

more than the shame, think about the massive tard singularity that is the outcome of this particular man's mental illness.

all the tardbuckets we have hauled and mauled for years. even fucking VMartin, probably.  GoP.  Atheistoclast.  all the same deranged moffocka, this one.  LOL

how many of these dipshits are there in teh world.  Javison and this fuckstick are undoubtedly different actual people.  That makes 2.  But.... I would not put anything else  more you can say about this particular retard, except that he is increasingly more unhinged

(see PT bathroom wall pages 286-289 or so for a hilarious example, compare to the talk rational thread in the always-linked upslope for a snapshot of what one year of *this*, whatever the fuck it is, left untreated, makes of an already disturbed and very stupid ESL man)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 07 2011,20:13

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 07 2011,20:48)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 07 2011,18:08)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 07 2011,12:56)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...your willingness to pass off a plagiarized passage as your own sciencey patter again demonstrates the fundamentally dishonest approach you bring to this discussion.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[News Barker]

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Read all about it! Creationist argues in bad faith and dishonestly, shocker! Hitherto incredibly frequently observed event occurs yet again! Things basically as normal! Read all about it!

[/News Barker]

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


RB screwed him into the corner with that, precisely concisely and very politely and nicely.  

this idiot doesn't give a shit about anything other than unitards headlocks and jock straps.

hey sweatheart you can't call the steps fiddle the tunes and lead the dance at the same time.  try the ricin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this really is GoP?

I feel dirty.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sweaty?  maybe like you have been wrestled into submission by a large and very muscular, strong hairy and virile athletically determined youth on the cusp of manhood?
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 07 2011,20:20

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 08 2011,01:13)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 07 2011,20:48)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 07 2011,18:08)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 07 2011,12:56)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...your willingness to pass off a plagiarized passage as your own sciencey patter again demonstrates the fundamentally dishonest approach you bring to this discussion.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



[News Barker]

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Read all about it! Creationist argues in bad faith and dishonestly, shocker! Hitherto incredibly frequently observed event occurs yet again! Things basically as normal! Read all about it!

[/News Barker]

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


RB screwed him into the corner with that, precisely concisely and very politely and nicely.  

this idiot doesn't give a shit about anything other than unitards headlocks and jock straps.

hey sweatheart you can't call the steps fiddle the tunes and lead the dance at the same time.  try the ricin
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So this really is GoP?

I feel dirty.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sweaty?  maybe like you have been wrestled into submission by a large and very muscular, strong hairy and virile athletically determined youth on the cusp of manhood?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, more like someone has snuck into my home and painted it with a fine layer of clarified pigshit.

I can't quite see it, yet it contaminates everything and smells bad.

Louis
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 07 2011,20:36

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,04:35)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,12:15)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:30)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, that's right.  Over the observed history of the universe, none of the fundamental forces have altered.  The weak nuclear force is exactly the same as it was 13 billion years ago.  How do we know?  Because suns still exist.

The output of the suns change over time.  The size of suns change over time (BTW: Most get larger and increase energy output, not smaller with weaker output).  But none of that is relevant to the weak nuclear force... which is both responsible for H-H fusion in stars AND radioactive decay.

To say that radioactive decay can change, then you must also say that the weak nuclear force can change and the consequence is that suns, at some point in the past, couldn't have existed.  (Let's wait and see if he figures this out :)

Please note, that the change in the value of A force does not mean that the force itself changes.  I can type gently or put so much force on the keyboard that it shatters.  This does not in any way change the simple fact that F = ma.

Yes, my concern troll is incoherent because I was using a faulty definition.  However, you (as shown by Bill) are still a concern troll in the classic definition of the word.

You are also trolling for emotional content because your ideas are somehow being oppressed because of a global conspiracy amongst low paid scientists to destroy religion.

This is, of course, an idiotic statement.  Even if it was true, it would have failed miserably.

Anywhoodle... you've lost it.  Did you run out of medication over the last few days?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually not all suns still exist and decay rates can be altered and do change

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.”

Your Wiki might help

Changing decay rates                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Changing_decay_rates

The radioactive decay modes of electron capture and internal conversion are known to be slightly sensitive to chemical and environmental effects which change the electronic structure of the atom, which in turn affects the presence of 1s and 2s electrons that participate in the decay process. Recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a weak dependence (0.5% or less) on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54, and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (of the order of 0.1%), proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or distance from the sun.[8][9][10] However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper[11] has found no evidence for such correlations in six other isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.

The strong nuclear force, not observed at the familiar macroscopic scale, is the most powerful force over subatomic distances. The electrostatic force is almost always significant, and, in the case of beta decay, the weak nuclear force is also involved.

Such a collapse (a decay event) requires a specific activation energy.. In the case of an excited atomic nucleus, the arbitrarily small disturbance comes from quantum vacuum fluctuations. A radioactive nucleus (or any excited system in quantum mechanics) is unstable, and can, thus, spontaneously stabilize to a less-excited system. The resulting transformation alters the structure of the nucleus and results in the emission of either a photon or a high-velocity particle that has mass (such as an electron, alpha particle, or other type).  Random quantum vacuum fluctuations are theorized to promote relaxation to a lower energy state (the "decay") in a phenomenon known as quantum tunneling. The Quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you read anything you quote. This discusses a 0.1% seasonal variation. You need more than that to convert 13billion years into 6 thousand years
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 07 2011,20:36

well

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
a large and very muscular, strong hairy and virile athletically determined youth on the cusp of manhood
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

is who painted it with pigshit.  

this moron has somehow managed to eat meals and flush toilet for several years whilst festering pustules all over the internet.  here's to blood poisoning, rhetorically speaking of course
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 07 2011,20:54

Didn't GOP turn out to be a Poe? Even GOP wouldn't say that changed farming practices and hybrids (re mineral content) proves that the fundamental forces change.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 07 2011,21:35

rests on the link of GoP to Bozo.  to the google machine!  or we could ask carlson
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 07 2011,21:35

this is bozo, i am pretty convinced of that.

ETA-- do a bayesian type thing
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,23:00

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 07 2011,12:26)
Quote (ppb @ Nov. 07 2011,11:46)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,12:30)
     
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,10:50)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,10:26)
Please tell me again how y'all observed these 13 billion years of geology and what is this concern/cry troll card that you keep playing?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


see... more conflating.

More changing what we were talking about.

I was talking about how we know that the fundamental laws of the universe haven't changed.  How we can observe the formation of stars 13 billion years ago and see that the weak nuclear force hasn't changed since then.

Now you want me to show that we have observed 13 billion years of geology.  Are you on crack?

I'm sorry, I'm using concern troll incorrectly.  What kind of troll is that comes in and cries because we don't give his flaky ideas the respect that we give to an actual scientist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is your exact quote Ogre: "None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so)."

..and again your concern/cry troll interpretation is a bit incoherent but it seems that you are actually trying to convey that y'all have been purposefully taking advantage of my sincerity from the beginning?  In that case, my concerns with your attitudo academico is not really a fabrication or off topic; and thus, not trolling.

Thank you
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's talking about the universe as a whole.  With modern astronomical instruments we can see what was happening almost as far back as the Big Bang.  With my own two eyes I can go out at night and see stuff that happened millions of years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, you did not see the green shag rug covering the pit in the jungle floor, did you Tarzan? Said light was created in transit to earth, and so is much younger than said billions or even millions of years!

Just like Adam and Eve were created as adults, not infants, or zygotes. ;)

Bringing it all back to uniformitarianism, we seem to have here a modern-day (?) Richard Kirwan denouncing we James Huttons. Can Velikovsky be far behind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So how did this new mutated apegirl have a enough genetic diversity to be considered the mitochondrial eve? Oh and did she like give birth to this H. Tarzan  that somehow dominated a whole troupe of bonobos?  To get away with all that, he musta  been either slicker than Caesar or stronger than a mutated gorilla on PCP. Oh wait, here’s his picture and he looks more like the smooth talker.

< http://t3.gstatic.com/images?....tuR7NJJ >

< http://www.radionicapolic.hr/filozof....ter.jpg >  
Hmm..his mommy looks a lot darker. Oh that’s right evolutionists say man’s skin got whiter and hair straighter with descent. Hmm but dont apes have white skin and straight hair?
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 07 2011,23:00

What's with this so-called belief in multiple ice ages? It's a conclusion inferred from evidence, though over 4+ billion years, if it can happen once there's nothing to unilaterally prevent it happening again. Besides which, the theory of evolution doesn't depend all that much on the number of ice ages.

Going by what I recall reading about ice cores, the experts in that area have figured out how to identify winter and summer layers in those things, and then count them.

Circular arguments are a problem with deductive reasoning, which involves using logic to derive conclusion from stated premises. The circular argument fallacy does not apply to inferences from evidence. To infer something from evidence, one predicts a pattern, or combination of patterns, that should be observed if the hypothesis is correct, but that would otherwise be unexpected.

When two methods of dating are used to calibrate each other, that is not circular. Each method is applied where it works; in places where both can be applied they are used to check each other.

Stacking of geologic layers: This means that one layer is above another one in the ground. Geologists know how to identify that.

Henry
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 07 2011,23:16

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
     
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,14:58)
Cut and paste IDiot strikes again!

       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:35)
 

The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
< http://io9.com/5619954....emistry >

{quote deleted}

Your Wiki might help

{snipped to get to the part that contradicts the argument right above}

However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper[11] has found no evidence for such correlations in six other isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have contradicted yourself.  I think it is because you are clueless.  You are not ready for such subtleties as the distinction of spontaneous vs stimulated radioactivity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Whoa  why you mixing and matching to make a 2009 study appear as subsequent to the 2010 Stanford/Purdue study that my quote I first mentioned?
Power spectrum analyses of nuclear decay rates Volume 34, Issue 3, October 2010, < http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....0001234 >
Norman, E. B.; et al. (2009). "Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The 2009 article references that very same Stanford-Purdue group making claims before 2009:  J.H. Jenkins, E. Fischbach, J.B. Buncher, J.T. Gruenwald, D.E. Krause, J.J. Mattes, <> arXiv:0808.3283v1[astro-ph] 25 August, 2008.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not only that, but that 2009 article mentioned in wiki didnt all together dismiss the variation found in the other three wiki articles but rather the mechanism hypothesized to cause the variation in different kinds of isotopes.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, it did dismiss the variation. "We have reexamined our previously published data to search for evidence of correlations between the rates for the alpha, beta-minus, beta-plus, and electron capture decays of 22Na, 44Ti, 108Agm, 121Snm, 133 Ba, and 241Am and the Earth–Sun distance. We ?nd no evidence for such correlations and set limits on the possible amplitudes of such correlations substantially smaller than those observed in previous experiments."

So you are wrong (again) on both counts.

Langmuir had a famous lecture about pathological science based exactly upon this type of research (very low signal to noise).  Given that there is only one group who is seeing this over and over, and particle physics would require a major overhaul, the probability is high that the effect is an artifact.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 07 2011,23:18

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 07 2011,21:35)
rests on the link of GoP to Bozo.  to the google machine!  or we could ask carlson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No doubt about the Bozo.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,23:26

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,14:33)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:41)
Oh and Ogre, I dont think that I said: "to destroy religion" "by low paid scientists" but then you yourself have actually convinced me that that too is often true. Its more about ecofeminist under primordial influences
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.  Of course you didn't 'say' it.  You never actually 'say' anything where someone could come back on you for it.

What is it that exploded to cause the Big Bang and what is your estimate of the Age of the Earth?

You heavily implied it though... straight from the talking points of the crazed fundie conspiracy creationist pamphlet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I really appreciate that you feel no one can really counter me.

This is more what I'm talking about

< http://www.nih.gov/news....-26.htm >
< http://www.davidlgray.info/ademocr....ls.html >
< http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene....e01.asp >
< http://www.moonbattery.com/archive....24.html >
< http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2011....control > < http://www.humanevents.com/article....d=26220 >
< http://www.christianexaminer.com/Article....08.html >
< http://www.humanevents.com/article....d=26220 >
< 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 >

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....ufnMNDg >
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....KqHWJU0 >
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....-1emRic >
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 07 2011,23:35

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,23:16)
 

The 2009 article references that very same Stanford-Purdue group making claims before 2009:  J.H. Jenkins, E. Fischbach, J.B. Buncher, J.T. Gruenwald, D.E. Krause, J.J. Mattes, <> arXiv:0808.3283v1[astro-ph] 25 August, 2008.

Langmuir had a famous lecture about pathological science based exactly upon this type of research (very low signal to noise).  Given that there is only one group who is seeing this over and over, and particle physics would require a major overhaul, the probability is high that the effect is an artifact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oops, another negative result, for a beta decaying nucleus!  Bayesian prior for "artifact" just got a lot bigger...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DO RADIOACTIVE HALF-LIVES VARY WITH THE EARTH-TO-SUN
DISTANCE?
J.C. Hardy*, J.R. Goodwin and V.E. Iacob#
Cyclotron Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845-3366, USA
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%.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 07 2011,23:42

in the link-spew it just left there i picked out the prison planet link, just by the toe claw.  

looky



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
NASA Global Warming Alarmist Endorses Book That Calls For Mass Genocide
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



spoiler alert, the book happens to be something other than Duh Babble LOL
Posted by: Woodbine on Nov. 07 2011,23:43

Alex Jones, Genecide(sic), Eco-Fascism, those fucking HOMOS!!!, and a couple of 404s to boot.

:D
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 07 2011,23:43

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,23:16)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
     
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,14:58)
Cut and paste IDiot strikes again!

         
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:35)
 

The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
< http://io9.com/5619954....emistry >

{quote deleted}

Your Wiki might help

{snipped to get to the part that contradicts the argument right above}

However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper[11] has found no evidence for such correlations in six other isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have contradicted yourself.  I think it is because you are clueless.  You are not ready for such subtleties as the distinction of spontaneous vs stimulated radioactivity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Whoa  why you mixing and matching to make a 2009 study appear as subsequent to the 2010 Stanford/Purdue study that my quote I first mentioned?
Power spectrum analyses of nuclear decay rates Volume 34, Issue 3, October 2010, < http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....0001234 >
Norman, E. B.; et al. (2009). "Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The 2009 article references that very same Stanford-Purdue group making claims before 2009:  J.H. Jenkins, E. Fischbach, J.B. Buncher, J.T. Gruenwald, D.E. Krause, J.J. Mattes, <> arXiv:0808.3283v1[astro-ph] 25 August, 2008.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not only that, but that 2009 article mentioned in wiki didnt all together dismiss the variation found in the other three wiki articles but rather the mechanism hypothesized to cause the variation in different kinds of isotopes.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, it did dismiss the variation. "We have reexamined our previously published data to search for evidence of correlations between the rates for the alpha, beta-minus, beta-plus, and electron capture decays of 22Na, 44Ti, 108Agm, 121Snm, 133 Ba, and 241Am and the Earth–Sun distance. We ?nd no evidence for such correlations and set limits on the possible amplitudes of such correlations substantially smaller than those observed in previous experiments."

So you are wrong (again) on both counts.

Langmuir had a famous lecture about pathological science based exactly upon this type of research (very low signal to noise).  Given that there is only one group who is seeing this over and over, and particle physics would require a major overhaul, the probability is high that the effect is an artifact.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Subsequent means after and my original article clearly says 2010 while the one that you like says 2009 (actually recieved in 2008). Plus it studied totally different isotopes and was only one counter study versus my four.

Of course they are going to fight it tooth and nail. In fact your article says:  "Recently, Jenkins et al. [4] proposed that these decay rate variations were correlated with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Jenkins et al. went on to suggest that the underlying mechanism responsible for this correlation might be some previously unobserved field emitted by the Sun or perhaps was the result of the (±3%) annual variation in the flux of solar
neutrinos reaching the Earth. If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.

Oh and Notice how the "correlated" is used? It doesnt actually dismiss the 3% decay rate but rather some correlations with the son.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 07 2011,23:52

reciprocating bill nukes this moron's entire play pen and still he is completely oblivious.  

fourass keeps trying to stack the blocks and shit but RB snatched his blocks away because back there fourass denied the existence of the blocks so for him even this simple task is stymied by the manifestation of his particular logorrheic malfunction.  

a person like that has not reasoned his self into his particular bugfuckery, so of course he can't be reasoned out of it either.  but, on the other hand, we can probably make it wish it could LOL
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 08 2011,00:00

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 07 2011,14:33)
I have another question for you to avoid... do you actually think any of this is new?

Do you actually think that over the last 60 years of radiometric dating, no one has noticed that there MIGHT be some seasonal variation in decay rates?

My research shows that the decay rate varies based on the sun.  The rotation of the solar core AND the distance from the Earth to the sun.

So, first of all, it's cyclical... meaning that over time, it will average out.

Second, I don't see radium, manganese, or silicon on the list of radioactive dating methods.  So, you'll need to provide evidence that all methods are affected this way.

Third, let's say that it does alter the decay rate by .37%.  Let's say that is a permanent change.  That means the error for the age of the Earth is off by 14.4 millions years (using potassium-argon) and less than 18,000 years using uranium-thorium.

Doesn't actually help that much... does it.

Oh and don't forget that it actually has to affect all the radiometric dating methods differently since they all point to the same age.

St. Severin (ordinary chondrite)

   Pb-Pb isochron - 4.543 +/- 0.019 GY
   Sm-Nd isochron - 4.55 +/- 0.33 GY
   Rb-Sr isochron - 4.51 +/- 0.15 GY
   Re-Os isochron - 4.68 +/- 0.15 GY


Oh, BTW: This still doesn't imply or indicate that there is a fundamental change in the weak nuclear force.  What is does imply is that there is something going on that we don't really understand.  Is it solar neutrinos?  Maybe.  heck, maybe it's cold, dark matter... or dark energy.  

On the other hand, I do have confidence that science will figure it out in short order and be able to calculate the effects of this phenomenon (which may or may not actually exist).  On the other hand, I also have complete confidence that no creationists will figure this out.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am glad that you finally agree that decay rates can be altered but then you are changing the goal posts again by pretending that these rates will always decay at the slight rate you are sticking with. The very fact that isotopes can be altered at all from year to year indicates that they could be altered drastically during perturbations of the pasts
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 08 2011,00:29

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,23:35)
[quote=Tracy P. Hamilton,Nov. 07 2011,23:16]  


Oops, another negative result, for a beta decaying nucleus!  Bayesian prior for "artifact" just got a lot bigger...

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DO RADIOACTIVE HALF-LIVES VARY WITH THE EARTH-TO-SUN
DISTANCE?
J.C. Hardy*, J.R. Goodwin and V.E. Iacob#
Cyclotron Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845-3366, USA
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%.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting but this gold isotope doesnt seem to have much  decay experimentation to go on? Maybe that's why they skipped the multi-year activity measure?

Like I said the council of elders wont give up their radiomagic wands with out a bitter fight
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 08 2011,06:50

Hey forastero -

In challenging radiometric dating, you cite the phenomenon of decay rates changing in response to environmental conditions. Your own reference (a Wikipedia article) states the following:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a weak dependence (0.5% or less) on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54, and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (of the order of 0.1%), proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or distance from the sun.[8][9][10]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let us grant the 0.5% number, arguendo (although your own reference also states that a number of experiments indicate that decay rates are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by external conditions).

That moves the onset of the Triassic from 2.5 million centuries in the past to ~2.48 million centuries in the past. It moves the onset of the Jurassic from ~1.996 million centuries in the past to ~1.98 million centuries. And it moves the end of the Cretaceous from 655,000 centuries in the past to 651,725 centuries in the past.

So, does the Wikipedia article you cite support your belief in a mythical flood with its attendant antediluvian and post-flood eco-zones, or does it not support the rejection of your imaginary chronology and, in large measure, support the standard chronology, even granting a contraction of the timeline by 0.5 percent?

Oh, and when was the flood? You didn't say.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 08 2011,07:58

Yes, when was the fludde? I've some questions regarding the pyramids to ask, if you dare answer the fludde question.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2011,08:28

Orangutan genome is more stable than humans... OMG... evolutionary theory is completely wrong...

Oh wait.  No it's not, nevermind.

Let me ask you... SO WHAT?

forestaro,

As usual, you IGNORED the main question in my little post. I don't know how else to get through that mass of Kruger-Dunning you call an edjumecation.

1) Look at the three radioactive elements that are affected by this phenomenon.  Note how NONE of them are used to radiometrically date long time spans.  Carbon-14 is not on the list, neither is Uranium-Thorium, neither is Rubidium-Strontium, neither is Lead-Lead, none of them...

YOU actually have to show that THOSE methods are also affected by this (or any other) phenomenon.  

This is the fallacy of the Hasty Generalization.  Some radioactive isotopes are affected by the sun... therefore ALL radioactive isotopes are affected by the sun.  This is an incorrect conclusion.  You may not claim that a radioactive isotope is affected in this way until you prove it.

2) Now look very carefully at the estimated times of the 4 different methods I provided.

Note how they all converge to the same range.  Given the listed error range, FOUR DIFFERENT radioactive methods give the same date from 4.53 - 4.55 bya.  If they are radically changing, then why are these dates all converging.

Remember, that since you are talking about a change in the rate of radioactivity (which STILL doesn't imply a change in the weak nuclear force), then the half lives will change.  Isotopes with a shorter half life will end up with larger changes than isotopes with longer half lives.

So, your explanation has to cover that (not just for these four, but all of them).

3) You still haven't explained how this helps you.  I'm using YOUR numbers to estimate the changes.  The estimate of change using YOUR numbers is less than 0.1% of the age of the Earth.

If you want to claim

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
that they could be altered drastically during perturbations of the pasts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then you have to provide evidence for it.  Where is the evidence that you need to so radically alter the decay rates to get the age of the Earth to less than a million years?

4)  Have you even thought about this... just for a second consider what would happen if you did say that all this occurred in just a million years.  You do realize that the Earth would be totally uninhabitable from the sleet of hard radiation and the massive amount of heat melting the entire planet, right?

5) Oh yeah, the big thing about the article that you also keep forgetting about... this is a SEASONAL effect.  The rate is slower in when the Earth is farther away and the rate is faster when the Earth is closer.

In other words, when you consider the average... over, say, 4.5 billion years, then the seasonal variation is totally insignificant.  (It's insignificant in other ways too.)  YOU have to show that this variation is not averaged out over time.  I would suggest a multi-decade study to examine this... preferably in the Sahara desert.  Maybe we can cobble together a plane ticket for you.

In conclusion: You have 5 major issues to answer for.  Get started.  

BTW: what actually exploded in the Big Bang and when, exactly, was Noah's flood?

edit: correct age range
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 08 2011,09:21

[quote=forastero,Nov. 08 2011,00:29]
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,23:35)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,23:16)
 


Oops, another negative result, for a beta decaying nucleus!  Bayesian prior for "artifact" just got a lot bigger...

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DO RADIOACTIVE HALF-LIVES VARY WITH THE EARTH-TO-SUN
DISTANCE?
J.C. Hardy*, J.R. Goodwin and V.E. Iacob#
Cyclotron Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845-3366, USA
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%.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting but this gold isotope doesnt seem to have much  decay experimentation to go on? Maybe that's why they skipped the multi-year activity measure?

Like I said the council of elders wont give up their radiomagic wands with out a bitter fight
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Multi-year means continuous observations over multiple years, not observations spread over multi-years.  The gold isotope data is more than enough, and was using data already collected many years ago, same as the other paper which detected no variation.

You hanging on to this shows no ability to judge good from bad, you just think like a child: no contstant radiodecay rates -> no reliable dating.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 08 2011,09:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So how did this new mutated apegirl have a enough genetic diversity to be considered the mitochondrial eve?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somebody who understood what "mitochondrial eve" means wouldn't ask that. She was part of a population, not necessarily even at a time of a bottleneck. Her mitochondria is what got inherited by everybody later; for all other piece of DNA the source might be anybody in the population in which she lived.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 08 2011,10:03

On whether radioactive decay rates are affected by distance from the sun: from the above, it sounded like one group got an indication of that and others didn't see it? In that case the thing for the first group to do is look for seasonal effects on their equipment.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 08 2011,10:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The very fact that isotopes can be altered at all from year to year indicates that they could be altered drastically during perturbations of the pasts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No it doesn't. That would depend on what causes the alterations, the magnitude of the effect, and whether it's cyclical or not. For example, an effect caused by intense pressure would matter only if the sample had a history of being at widely different depths in the Earth; for a sample that had been on or near the surface since its formation that effect would be unlikely to matter.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 08 2011,10:58

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2011,06:50)
Hey forastero -

In challenging radiometric dating, you cite the phenomenon of decay rates changing in response to environmental conditions. Your own reference (a Wikipedia article) states the following:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a weak dependence (0.5% or less) on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54, and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (of the order of 0.1%), proposed to be related to either solar flare activity or distance from the sun.[8][9][10]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let us grant the 0.5% number, arguendo (although your own reference also states that a number of experiments indicate that decay rates are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by external conditions).

That moves the onset of the Triassic from 2.5 million centuries in the past to ~2.48 million centuries in the past. It moves the onset of the Jurassic from ~1.996 million centuries in the past to ~1.98 million centuries. And it moves the end of the Cretaceous from 655,000 centuries in the past to 651,725 centuries in the past.

So, does the Wikipedia article you cite support your belief in a mythical flood with its attendant antediluvian and post-flood eco-zones, or does it not support the rejection of your imaginary chronology and, in large measure, support the standard chronology, even granting a contraction of the timeline by 0.5 percent?

Oh, and when was the flood? You didn't say.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


“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 >

Thus all these many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time as even indicated by the study’s detractors at Berkeley

Berkeley scientists say: “If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.”
< http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers....Sun.pdf >

Then on top of this, you have all the contamination and calibration problems of radiometric dating
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 08 2011,11:02

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,08:28)
Orangutan genome is more stable than humans... OMG... evolutionary theory is completely wrong...

Oh wait.  No it's not, nevermind.

Let me ask you... SO WHAT?

forestaro,

As usual, you IGNORED the main question in my little post. I don't know how else to get through that mass of Kruger-Dunning you call an edjumecation.

1) Look at the three radioactive elements that are affected by this phenomenon.  Note how NONE of them are used to radiometrically date long time spans.  Carbon-14 is not on the list, neither is Uranium-Thorium, neither is Rubidium-Strontium, neither is Lead-Lead, none of them...

YOU actually have to show that THOSE methods are also affected by this (or any other) phenomenon.  

This is the fallacy of the Hasty Generalization.  Some radioactive isotopes are affected by the sun... therefore ALL radioactive isotopes are affected by the sun.  This is an incorrect conclusion.  You may not claim that a radioactive isotope is affected in this way until you prove it.

2) Now look very carefully at the estimated times of the 4 different methods I provided.

Note how they all converge to the same range.  Given the listed error range, FOUR DIFFERENT radioactive methods give the same date from 4.53 - 4.55 bya.  If they are radically changing, then why are these dates all converging.

Remember, that since you are talking about a change in the rate of radioactivity (which STILL doesn't imply a change in the weak nuclear force), then the half lives will change.  Isotopes with a shorter half life will end up with larger changes than isotopes with longer half lives.

So, your explanation has to cover that (not just for these four, but all of them).

3) You still haven't explained how this helps you.  I'm using YOUR numbers to estimate the changes.  The estimate of change using YOUR numbers is less than 0.1% of the age of the Earth.

If you want to claim  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
that they could be altered drastically during perturbations of the pasts
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then you have to provide evidence for it.  Where is the evidence that you need to so radically alter the decay rates to get the age of the Earth to less than a million years?

4)  Have you even thought about this... just for a second consider what would happen if you did say that all this occurred in just a million years.  You do realize that the Earth would be totally uninhabitable from the sleet of hard radiation and the massive amount of heat melting the entire planet, right?

5) Oh yeah, the big thing about the article that you also keep forgetting about... this is a SEASONAL effect.  The rate is slower in when the Earth is farther away and the rate is faster when the Earth is closer.

In other words, when you consider the average... over, say, 4.5 billion years, then the seasonal variation is totally insignificant.  (It's insignificant in other ways too.)  YOU have to show that this variation is not averaged out over time.  I would suggest a multi-decade study to examine this... preferably in the Sahara desert.  Maybe we can cobble together a plane ticket for you.

In conclusion: You have 5 major issues to answer for.  Get started.  

BTW: what actually exploded in the Big Bang and when, exactly, was Noah's flood?

edit: correct age range
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps < http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news....ed.html >
..but the whole point of that article was the fact that  the U.S.  dept. of Health and Family Services sponsored the study and is also heavily involved in using our tax dollars toward abortion and homosexual propaganda when they are supposed to be using that money to help the poor.

Ogre, how many times you gonna change your stance of shifting decay rates? First you totally scoffed at the idea. Then you said that your own research “shows that the decay rate varies based on the sun.  The rotation of the solar core AND the distance from the Earth to the sun.” Today your scoffing at it again,

My post above clearly demonstrates that it don’t even take huge radiation spikes to add up exponentially. Plus your own Stephen Jay Gould promoted radioactive spiked punctuated equilibrium as a big creation device,

Oh and actually, Jenkins et al. did find 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 >
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 08 2011,11:08

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:58)
“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 >

Thus all these many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time as even indicated by the study’s detractors at Berkeley

Berkeley scientists say: “If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.”
< http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers.....Sun.pdf >

Then on top of this, you have all the contamination and calibration problems of radiometric dating
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A dip in the decay rate would result in radiometric dates that underestimate the actual age of the dated object.

But yours is unresponsive. The questions were:

1) Let us grant the 0.5% number, arguendo (although your own reference also states that a number of experiments indicate that decay rates are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by external conditions).

That moves the onset of the Triassic from 2.5 million centuries in the past to ~2.48 million centuries in the past. It moves the onset of the Jurassic from ~1.996 million centuries in the past to ~1.98 million centuries. And it moves the end of the Cretaceous from 655,000 centuries in the past to 651,725 centuries in the past.

So, does the Wikipedia article you cite support your belief in a mythical flood with its attendant antediluvian and post-flood eco-zones, or does it not support the rejection of your imaginary chronology and, in large measure, support the standard chronology, even granting a contraction of the timeline by 0.5 percent?

2) When was the flood?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 08 2011,11:09

Page bug bump.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 08 2011,11:11

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,09:21)
[quote=forastero,Nov. 08 2011,00:29]
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,23:35)
 
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,23:16)
 


Oops, another negative result, for a beta decaying nucleus!  Bayesian prior for "artifact" just got a lot bigger...

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
DO RADIOACTIVE HALF-LIVES VARY WITH THE EARTH-TO-SUN
DISTANCE?
J.C. Hardy*, J.R. Goodwin and V.E. Iacob#
Cyclotron Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845-3366, USA
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%.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting but this gold isotope doesnt seem to have much  decay experimentation to go on? Maybe that's why they skipped the multi-year activity measure?

Like I said the council of elders wont give up their radiomagic wands with out a bitter fight
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Multi-year means continuous observations over multiple years, not observations spread over multi-years.  The gold isotope data is more than enough, and was using data already collected many years ago, same as the other paper which detected no variation.

You hanging on to this shows no ability to judge good from bad, you just think like a child: no contstant radiodecay rates -> no reliable dating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah so you conclude that all isotopes are equally stable when it comes to fluctuations? Lets see if Ogre disagrees.

Oh and your first sentence seems contradictory.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 08 2011,11:15

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 08 2011,11:08)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:58)
“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 >

Thus all these many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time as even indicated by the study’s detractors at Berkeley

Berkeley scientists say: “If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.”
< http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers.....Sun.pdf >

Then on top of this, you have all the contamination and calibration problems of radiometric dating
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A dip in the decay rate would result in radiometric dates that underestimate the actual age of the dated object.

But yours is unresponsive. The questions were:

1) Let us grant the 0.5% number, arguendo (although your own reference also states that a number of experiments indicate that decay rates are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by external conditions).

That moves the onset of the Triassic from 2.5 million centuries in the past to ~2.48 million centuries in the past. It moves the onset of the Jurassic from ~1.996 million centuries in the past to ~1.98 million centuries. And it moves the end of the Cretaceous from 655,000 centuries in the past to 651,725 centuries in the past.

So, does the Wikipedia article you cite support your belief in a mythical flood with its attendant antediluvian and post-flood eco-zones, or does it not support the rejection of your imaginary chronology and, in large measure, support the standard chronology, even granting a contraction of the timeline by 0.5 percent?

2) When was the flood?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, all the scientist disagree with your dismissing of the possible consequences if the fluctuations are found to be true.

Again, many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 08 2011,11:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Like I said the council of elders wont give up their radiomagic wands with out a bitter fight
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Isn't it just too bad, it happens all the time. I still remember the heroic struggle of Sir Fred Hoyle against the council of elders.
I remember how long it took before the elders got their ranks in proper order too.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 08 2011,11:21

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:15)
Again, all the scientist disagree with your dismissing of the possible consequences if the fluctuations are found to be true.

Again, many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, when was the flood then?
Posted by: tsig on Nov. 08 2011,11:23

Quote (Cubist @ Oct. 21 2011,21:03)
I second Ogre's remarks above: If you're not claiming that everything is Designed, you must be claiming that some things are Designed and other things are not Designed... so how do you tell the difference? Given some arbitrarily-chosen whatzit, how can you tell whether said whatzit is, or is not, Designed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why you apply the Explanatory Filter ... calculate the CSI...drat it, it just looks designed.

misquote many dead scientists

so there. Case proofed. :)
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 08 2011,11:25

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 08 2011,09:59)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So how did this new mutated apegirl have a enough genetic diversity to be considered the mitochondrial eve?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somebody who understood what "mitochondrial eve" means wouldn't ask that. She was part of a population, not necessarily even at a time of a bottleneck. Her mitochondria is what got inherited by everybody later; for all other piece of DNA the source might be anybody in the population in which she lived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So are you saying some radiation spiked punctuated equilibrium came down from the heavens and turned a hole bunch of bonobos into homos all at once?

Or as I asked before. Did this apegirl breed with with alpha ape to make hybrid apeboys more vigorous than mutated gorillas on PCP and thus able to dominate their ancestral troop?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 08 2011,11:27

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:21)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:15)
Again, all the scientist disagree with your dismissing of the possible consequences if the fluctuations are found to be true.

Again, many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, when was the flood then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 08 2011,11:27

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:25)
So are you saying some radiation spiked punctuated equilibrium came down from the heavens and turned a hole bunch of bonobos into homos all at once?

Or as I asked before. Did this apegirl breed with with alpha ape to make hybrid apeboys more vigorous than mutated gorillas on PCP and thus able to dominate their ancestral troop?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When was the flood?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 08 2011,11:28

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:27)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:21)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:15)
Again, all the scientist disagree with your dismissing of the possible consequences if the fluctuations are found to be true.

Again, many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, when was the flood then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's your best guess?
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 08 2011,11:28

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,08:58)
Thus all these many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time as even indicated by the study’s detractors at Berkeley

Berkeley scientists say: “If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.”
< http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers.....Sun.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where in the paper is it indicated that the variations add up exponentially over time, muppet?  

I read it.  Did you?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 08 2011,11:31

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:27)
We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If every ancient culture recorded the event:

A) You'd simply be able to tell me when those cultures dated it to.

B) Illogical. If the global flood killed all but a handful of people on the Ark then what "ancient cultures" were around to record the event at all? They were all dead!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 08 2011,11:31

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,12:25)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 08 2011,09:59)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So how did this new mutated apegirl have a enough genetic diversity to be considered the mitochondrial eve?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somebody who understood what "mitochondrial eve" means wouldn't ask that. She was part of a population, not necessarily even at a time of a bottleneck. Her mitochondria is what got inherited by everybody later; for all other piece of DNA the source might be anybody in the population in which she lived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So are you saying some radiation spiked punctuated equilibrium came down from the heavens and turned a hole bunch of bonobos into homos all at once?

Or as I asked before. Did this apegirl breed with with alpha ape to make hybrid apeboys more vigorous than mutated gorillas on PCP and thus able to dominate their ancestral troop?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you fool, that's exactly what we are saying.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 08 2011,11:32

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 08 2011,11:28)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,08:58)
Thus all these many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time as even indicated by the study’s detractors at Berkeley

Berkeley scientists say: “If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.”
< http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers.....Sun.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where in the paper is it indicated that the variations add up exponentially over time, muppet?  

I read it.  Did you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its common sense. Muppets dont have common sense so they just conform
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 08 2011,11:33

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,12:31)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:27)
We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If every ancient culture recorded the event:

A) You'd simply be able to tell me when those cultures dated it to.

B) Illogical. If the global flood killed all but a handful of people on the Ark then what "ancient cultures" were around to record the event at all? They were all dead!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


knuckles!  transposons!  hitler!  the lord works in mysterious ways
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2011,11:33

You really aren't listening forastero (huge surprise, I know).

None of any of these points you keep bringing up does anything that you MUST have it do, which is reduce the possible age of the Earth from 4.5 billion years to less than 1 million years (and that's giving you an extra 3 orders of magnitude that you really shouldn't get).

You see, you can SAY things all you want.  You still have no evidence to support 'exponential changes'.  You still have no way of dealing with the fact, that the isotopes you are discussing are not used for radiometric dating.  You still have no way of dealing with the fact, that ALL methods of radioactive dating converge on a specific date and if you alter the rate of decay (for example, by changing the weak nuclear force), they will not converge on a date.

And all this was brought up because you still think that this is an argument that the weak nuclear force can change.  It can't.  There are external mechanisms that SEEM to increase AND decrease the rate of radioactive decay by a miniscule amount (not exponential and it's cyclical anyway).

What's really fucking funny is you are quoting a paper that specifically denies all of this is occurring anyway.  Let's read the conclusion shall we?





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In conclusion, we find no evidence for correlations between the rates for the decays of 22Na, 44Ti, 108Agm, 121Snm, 133Ba, and 241Am and the Earth–Sun distance. We set limits on the possible amplitudes of such correlations (2.5–37) times smaller than those observed in previous experiments [1–3]. Our results strongly disfavor the suggestions by Jenkins et al. [4] of an annual  variation based on a previously unobserved field produced by the Sun or the annual variation in the flux of solar neutrinos reaching the Earth. Recently, Cooper [8] performed a very clever analysis of decay power data obtained from the 238Pu thermoelectric generator aboard the Cassini spacecraft. The results of this analysis also strongly disagree with the hypothesis of a correlation  between nuclear decay rates and the distance of the source to the Sun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers/EarthSun.pdf

Wow... but thanks for providing the paper.

We can say, without further SIGNIFICANT evidence, that this entire line of discussion is moot (note correct spelling).

So, you have again, wasted some 5-6 pages on something that was totally useless.

Are there any other of your claims you'd like to disprove for us?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 08 2011,11:37

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:32)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 08 2011,11:28)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,08:58)
Thus all these many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time as even indicated by the study’s detractors at Berkeley

Berkeley scientists say: “If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.”
< http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers.....Sun.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where in the paper is it indicated that the variations add up exponentially over time, muppet?  

I read it.  Did you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its common sense. Muppets dont have common sense so they just conform
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When do you think the global flood was?

How is it possible that all ancient cultures recorded it if by definition they were wiped out by such a flood?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2011,11:38

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:31)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:27)
We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If every ancient culture recorded the event:

A) You'd simply be able to tell me when those cultures dated it to.

B) Illogical. If the global flood killed all but a handful of people on the Ark then what "ancient cultures" were around to record the event at all? They were all dead!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL

You, sir, are a gem.

Further: If everyone was dead and their culture still recorded a flood story... what is the evidence that the floods actually happened?  In other words, physical evidence?

Tell us, if you can't determine a date, then were, in/on the Earth is all the sediment from the flood deposited?  If the Flood was global, then there should be one layer, with lots of dead things in it, that is effectively contiguous throughout the planet.  Yes, even allowing for uplift, we can still correlate the rock layers.  You might not be able to, but any junior level Geology student can.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 08 2011,11:39

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:31)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:27)
We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If every ancient culture recorded the event:

A) You'd simply be able to tell me when those cultures dated it to.

B) Illogical. If the global flood killed all but a handful of people on the Ark then what "ancient cultures" were around to record the event at all? They were all dead!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Semetic, Hamitic,  and Japhetic groups of course whom agree on the existence many things without specific dates of origin.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 08 2011,11:45

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,11:33)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In conclusion, we find no evidence for correlations between the rates for the decays of 22Na, 44Ti, 108Agm, 121Snm, 133Ba, and 241Am and the Earth–Sun distance. We set limits on the possible amplitudes of such correlations (2.5–37) times smaller than those observed in previous experiments [1–3]. Our results strongly disfavor the suggestions by Jenkins et al. [4] of an annual  variation based on a previously unobserved field produced by the Sun or the annual variation in the flux of solar neutrinos reaching the Earth. Recently, Cooper [8] performed a very clever analysis of decay power data obtained from the 238Pu thermoelectric generator aboard the Cassini spacecraft. The results of this analysis also strongly disagree with the hypothesis of a correlation  between nuclear decay rates and the distance of the source to the Sun.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers/EarthSun.pdf

Wow... but thanks for providing the paper.

We can say, without further SIGNIFICANT evidence, that this entire line of discussion is moot (note correct spelling).

So, you have again, wasted some 5-6 pages on something that was totally useless.

Are there any other of your claims you'd like to disprove for us?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, I have included this article from the very beginning and mentioned several times  that paper disagreed with the fluctuations.

What they do agree with though is that y'all are wrong in dismissing the gravity of the possible fluctuations
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 08 2011,11:49

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:39)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:31)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:27)
We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If every ancient culture recorded the event:

A) You'd simply be able to tell me when those cultures dated it to.

B) Illogical. If the global flood killed all but a handful of people on the Ark then what "ancient cultures" were around to record the event at all? They were all dead!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Semetic, Hamitic,  and Japhetic groups of course whom agree on the existence many things without specific dates of origin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the descendants of Noah wrote down that there was a global flood? And that's how you know there was a global flood?

Where did they write it down?

So you *know* there was a global flood but can't bring yourself to put even an approximate date on the event?

Tell me then, were the Egyptians around during the flood?

Before the flood?

After the flood?

What's your best guess at a date for this "global flood" you just know happened?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 08 2011,11:50

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:45)
What they do agree with though is that y'all are wrong in dismissing the gravity of the possible fluctuations
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All people are dismissing is your interpretations of the possible fluctuations. As you've been unable to support your interpretation in any way at all that's a reasonable thing to happen.

Get used to it.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 08 2011,11:51



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very interesting. We don't need the exact figure, just your best guess - which is the best you can do anyway.

AFAIK, the age of aboriginal culture in Australia is something like 40.000 years. Shouldn't they have a memory both of the flood and Noah's zoo caravan?

Some people are beyond reason.

ETA: I've mentioned it before but the geology of the famous fjords of Norway shows that they were created by twenty successive glaciation events. There also is evidence for human activity in the highlands at last 9.000 years back in time before the ice was gone from the lowlands. (The only possible access route at that time would have been over the ice.)
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 08 2011,11:52

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:39)
The Semetic, Hamitic,  and Japhetic groups of course whom agree on the existence many things without specific dates of origin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So if three groups of people agree on something that automatically makes it true?

OK......

What's *your* best guess at a date for the global flood you *know* happened?
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 08 2011,11:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
every ancient culture recorded the event
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You heard it here folks, the bibblicul grait flud is confirmed--by the eyewitness testimony of the people who were killed by it!

After a global flood that left 8 survivors, there would be no cultures to record anything, idiot.

You don't really bother to think these things through, do you?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 08 2011,11:57

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,12:15)
Again, all the scientist disagree with your dismissing of the possible consequences if the fluctuations are found to be true.

Again, many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I did not dismiss the consequences of the findings reported in your cited Wiki article. I GRANTED the consequences, namely a 0.5% contraction of the timeline (although, as above, the results you cite suggest that radiometric dating actually underestimates ages in some instances.)

The questions are:

1) Let us grant the 0.5% number, arguendo (although your own reference also states that a number of experiments indicate that decay rates are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by external conditions).

That moves the onset of the Triassic from 2.5 million centuries in the past to ~2.48 million centuries in the past. It moves the onset of the Jurassic from ~1.996 million centuries in the past to ~1.98 million centuries. And it moves the end of the Cretaceous from 655,000 centuries in the past to 651,725 centuries in the past.

Given that, does the Wikipedia article you cite support your belief in a mythical flood with its attendant antediluvian and post-flood eco-zones, or does it not support the rejection of your imaginary chronology and, in large measure, support the standard chronology, even granting a contraction of the timeline by 0.5 percent?

2) When was the flood?

ETA: An order of magnitude will do. Hundreds of years in the past? Thousands? Tens of Thousands? etc.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 08 2011,11:57

So according to this guy on the internets, every culture we have knowledge of in the entire history of the earth was in fact descended from Noah, as logically all records of prior cultures were wiped out during the fuludde.

So you get off the boat. Find a dry place.

You start a new "culture".

Let's say "Egyptian". We know they did not exist prior to the flood because we have evidence for them - evidence that was washed away for all other cultures (how could it not be?). So they must have come into existence after the flood.  

So, knowing that just *yesterday* god killed everybody on the planet for not following his rules to the letter you go and found a religion that worships many gods. Not the "God". Many. Different. Ones. I believe there's even a specific rule against that.

Yes, that makes sense. That they would forget yesterday and do the exact thing that pissed it off in the first place again.

Duh!
Posted by: tsig on Nov. 08 2011,11:58

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 23 2011,17:43)
do we really have a live one? after all this time? really? Can I pet it? If I pet it, it won't die will it? That always happens. That always happens and you always say it's not my fault, but it is. it is.

Can i pet it? cAn i?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you can even call it George.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 08 2011,12:05

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,10:25)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 08 2011,09:59)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So how did this new mutated apegirl have a enough genetic diversity to be considered the mitochondrial eve?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Somebody who understood what "mitochondrial eve" means wouldn't ask that. She was part of a population, not necessarily even at a time of a bottleneck. Her mitochondria is what got inherited by everybody later; for all other piece of DNA the source might be anybody in the population in which she lived.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So are you saying some radiation spiked punctuated equilibrium came down from the heavens and turned a hole bunch of bonobos into homos all at once?

Or as I asked before. Did this apegirl breed with with alpha ape to make hybrid apeboys more vigorous than mutated gorillas on PCP and thus able to dominate their ancestral troop?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That reply had nothing to do with what I said.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 08 2011,12:06

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,10:27)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:21)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:15)
Again, all the scientist disagree with your dismissing of the possible consequences if the fluctuations are found to be true.

Again, many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, when was the flood then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even the Egyptians and Chinese who lived through it without noticing it?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 08 2011,12:08

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:49)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:39)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:31)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:27)
We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If every ancient culture recorded the event:

A) You'd simply be able to tell me when those cultures dated it to.

B) Illogical. If the global flood killed all but a handful of people on the Ark then what "ancient cultures" were around to record the event at all? They were all dead!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Semetic, Hamitic,  and Japhetic groups of course whom agree on the existence many things without specific dates of origin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the descendants of Noah wrote down that there was a global flood? And that's how you know there was a global flood?

Where did they write it down?

So you *know* there was a global flood but can't bring yourself to put even an approximate date on the event?

Tell me then, were the Egyptians around during the flood?

Before the flood?

After the flood?

What's your best guess at a date for this "global flood" you just know happened?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like most of the ancients, via oral traditions. They also wrote on their staffs

Afterwords so many made pyramids in Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa, etc.. with similar zodiacs, sacrifices to pagan gods, god-kings all vying to be worshiped as false Messiahs and Flood heroes

Is it possible these structures were being built almost simultaneously by different civilizations separated by continents who would have known nothing about each other?
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 08 2011,12:09

If George is a cat, take care:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
T. gondii can reproduce sexually only in cats. Investigations of effects on humans have found an increased risk of traffic accidents, and other reckless behavior, as well as links to hallucinations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(From Science Daily)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2011,12:10

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:45)
Again, I have included this article from the very beginning and mentioned several times  that paper disagreed with the fluctuations.

What they do agree with though is that y'all are wrong in dismissing the gravity of the possible fluctuations
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We aren't dismissing the gravity (ahem) of the fluctuations.

We're dismissing your claim that they exist.

Again, you wasted 6 pages to tell us (now) that IF such fluctuations existed, then they would... what... alter the dates by a few percent?

You do realize that to support the Biblical creation myth, you need to alter the dates by about 5 orders of magnitude.  Which, again, would probably result in the complete melting of the entire planet if the decay rates increased to support that change.

It still doesn't answer any of the issues.

This is a cute little attempt to backtrack your way out of a position that you think helped you somehow.

If all you wanted to say was "You're dismissing the gravity of the possible fluctuations", then you could have just SAID THAT.

You didn't.  You led us on this 5-6 page wild goose chase with no apparent goal.  Oh wait, the goal was to try and find some way of supporting your contention that the fundamental forces of the universe change.  A change in the radioactive decay RATES still doesn't help with that... even if those change in rates exist.  

You do know what beta decay is right?

Now, about that flood.  If the flood did cover the entire Earth, there should be physical evidence of it, even with all the uplift.

What layer of rock (or even sediment) is the flood?  Remember it must be world wide.  It must be suitably thick to do all the things you need it to.  And it must contain traces of all the organisms that died in the Flood.  

Tell us, where dinosaurs on the ark or killed in the flood?  Would you be willing to argue with another creationist who holds a different view than you on this subject?

BTW: What, exactly, exploded to cause the Big bang?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 08 2011,12:10

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:49)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:39)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:31)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:27)
We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If every ancient culture recorded the event:

A) You'd simply be able to tell me when those cultures dated it to.

B) Illogical. If the global flood killed all but a handful of people on the Ark then what "ancient cultures" were around to record the event at all? They were all dead!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Semetic, Hamitic,  and Japhetic groups of course whom agree on the existence many things without specific dates of origin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the descendants of Noah wrote down that there was a global flood? And that's how you know there was a global flood?

Where did they write it down?

So you *know* there was a global flood but can't bring yourself to put even an approximate date on the event?

Tell me then, were the Egyptians around during the flood?

Before the flood?

After the flood?

What's your best guess at a date for this "global flood" you just know happened?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like most of the ancients, via oral traditions. They also wrote on their staffs

Afterwords so many made pyramids in Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa, etc.. with similar zodiacs, sacrifices to pagan gods, god-kings all vying to be worshiped as false Messiahs and Flood heroes

Is it possible these structures were being built almost simultaneously by different civilizations separated by continents who would have known nothing about each other?
Posted by: tsig on Nov. 08 2011,12:14

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,12:10)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:49)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:39)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:31)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:27)
We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If every ancient culture recorded the event:

A) You'd simply be able to tell me when those cultures dated it to.

B) Illogical. If the global flood killed all but a handful of people on the Ark then what "ancient cultures" were around to record the event at all? They were all dead!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Semetic, Hamitic,  and Japhetic groups of course whom agree on the existence many things without specific dates of origin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the descendants of Noah wrote down that there was a global flood? And that's how you know there was a global flood?

Where did they write it down?

So you *know* there was a global flood but can't bring yourself to put even an approximate date on the event?

Tell me then, were the Egyptians around during the flood?

Before the flood?

After the flood?

What's your best guess at a date for this "global flood" you just know happened?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like most of the ancients, via oral traditions. They also wrote on their staffs

Afterwords so many made pyramids in Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa, etc.. with similar zodiacs, sacrifices to pagan gods, god-kings all vying to be worshiped as false Messiahs and Flood heroes

Is it possible these structures were being built almost simultaneously by different civilizations separated by continents who would have known nothing about each other?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How could there be any oral traditions. They were all dead.


Do you have any of those staffs with writing on them?
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 08 2011,12:15

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,09:32)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 08 2011,11:28)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,08:58)
Thus all these many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time as even indicated by the study’s detractors at Berkeley

Berkeley scientists say: “If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.”
< http://donuts.berkeley.edu/papers.....Sun.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where in the paper is it indicated that the variations add up exponentially over time, muppet?  

I read it.  Did you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Its common sense. Muppets dont have common sense so they just conform
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Answers of "nowhere" and "no" duly noted.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 08 2011,12:19

If they were all descended from one boatload of people, how could they not know about each other?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 08 2011,12:40

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 08 2011,12:10)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:45)
Again, I have included this article from the very beginning and mentioned several times  that paper disagreed with the fluctuations.

What they do agree with though is that y'all are wrong in dismissing the gravity of the possible fluctuations
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We aren't dismissing the gravity (ahem) of the fluctuations.

We're dismissing your claim that they exist.

Again, you wasted 6 pages to tell us (now) that IF such fluctuations existed, then they would... what... alter the dates by a few percent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You flip flopping again

You wrote

"My research shows that the decay rate varies based on the sun.  The rotation of the solar core AND the distance from the Earth to the sun. So, first of all, it's cyclical... meaning that over time, it will average out. Second, I don't see radium, manganese, or silicon on the list of radioactive dating methods.  So, you'll need to provide evidence that all methods are affected this way."

Oh and Radium is used as a dating method a lot  and magnesium used as a dating method on occasion
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 08 2011,12:40

What's your best guess as to when the global flood was?

Put a figure down. Have the courage of your convictions.

Tell me, if you don't know when it was how do you know it even happened at all?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 08 2011,12:44

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 08 2011,12:06)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,10:27)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:21)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:15)
Again, all the scientist disagree with your dismissing of the possible consequences if the fluctuations are found to be true.

Again, many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, when was the flood then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even the Egyptians and Chinese who lived through it without noticing it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For the ancients, Noah's Flood not only symbolized wrath, but also cleansing, renewal, and fertility. Babylon and Egypt for example would come to worship the flooding Fertile Crescent and Nile. Manetho, an Egyptian historian who lived about 250 B.C.,states that there was a worldwide watery catastrophe in which one called Toth was saved along with the Seven Sages.The Egyptians connected the Deluge tradition with their commemoration of the dead, which was done by symbolic ceremony, in which the priest placed the image of Osiris in a sacred ark and carried by the Nileinto the. Mediterranean. The ark floating upon the waters of the deep is a symbol to be found in the traditional wisdom of peoples all over the world. The name given to the city of Thebes or Th-aba is another word for the ark as a vessel of mankind. Kartha or Tyre, Astu or Athens, Urbs or Rome, are all names of cities reflecting this same idea. This ship is the same as the Barque (Boat of Ra) of the Egyptian temples. It is also the Celestial Ship, the Argonavis constellation, as well as the Ark of Salvation, the Argos ship.

Lots of Chinese Flood myths too
< http://www.sunypress.edu/p-4220-....na.aspx >
< http://www.mythome.org/fludmyt....t7.html >
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 08 2011,12:47

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
       

Of course they are going to fight it tooth and nail. In fact your article says:  "Recently, Jenkins et al. [4] proposed that these decay rate variations were correlated with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Jenkins et al. went on to suggest that the underlying mechanism responsible for this correlation might be some previously unobserved field emitted by the Sun or perhaps was the result of the (±3%) annual variation in the flux of solar
neutrinos reaching the Earth. If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.

Oh and Notice how the "correlated" is used? It doesnt actually dismiss the 3% decay rate but rather some correlations with the son.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"We observe no systematic  oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%."

No oscillations AT ALL, not just no oscillations based on earth orbit. Also 0.02% < 3%, IDiot.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 08 2011,12:56

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,12:47)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
       

Of course they are going to fight it tooth and nail. In fact your article says:  "Recently, Jenkins et al. [4] proposed that these decay rate variations were correlated with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Jenkins et al. went on to suggest that the underlying mechanism responsible for this correlation might be some previously unobserved field emitted by the Sun or perhaps was the result of the (±3%) annual variation in the flux of solar
neutrinos reaching the Earth. If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.

Oh and Notice how the "correlated" is used? It doesnt actually dismiss the 3% decay rate but rather some correlations with the son.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"We observe no systematic  oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%."

No oscillations AT ALL, not just no oscillations based on earth orbit. Also 0.02% < 3%, IDiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, your looking at an older article about different isotopes.

Here is the new one

Oh and actually, Jenkins et al. did find 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 >
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 08 2011,13:00

Well gotta take my siesta before work but I'll be back
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 08 2011,13:17

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,12:44)
For the ancients, Noah's Flood not only symbolized wrath, but also cleansing, renewal, and fertility. Babylon and Egypt for example would come to worship the flooding Fertile Crescent and Nile. Manetho, an Egyptian historian who lived about 250 B.C.,states that there was a worldwide watery catastrophe in which one called Toth was saved along with the Seven Sages.The Egyptians connected the Deluge tradition with their commemoration of the dead, which was done by symbolic ceremony, in which the priest placed the image of Osiris in a sacred ark and carried by the Nileinto the. Mediterranean. The ark floating upon the waters of the deep is a symbol to be found in the traditional wisdom of peoples all over the world. The name given to the city of Thebes or Th-aba is another word for the ark as a vessel of mankind. Kartha or Tyre, Astu or Athens, Urbs or Rome, are all names of cities reflecting this same idea. This ship is the same as the Barque (Boat of Ra) of the Egyptian temples. It is also the Celestial Ship, the Argonavis constellation, as well as the Ark of Salvation, the Argos ship.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but when did it happen?

The date must be before all the cultures you mention? Plus time for them to become cultures?

So, what's your *best guess* as to the specific date of the flood?

A million years ago?

A hundred thousand?

What? Help a guy out here.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 08 2011,13:41

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,13:44)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 08 2011,12:06)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,10:27)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:21)
       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:15)
Again, all the scientist disagree with your dismissing of the possible consequences if the fluctuations are found to be true.

Again, many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, when was the flood then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even the Egyptians and Chinese who lived through it without noticing it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For the ancients, Noah's Flood not only symbolized wrath, but also cleansing, renewal, and fertility. Babylon and Egypt for example would come to worship the flooding Fertile Crescent and Nile. Manetho, an Egyptian historian who lived about 250 B.C.,states that there was a worldwide watery catastrophe in which one called Toth was saved along with the Seven Sages.The Egyptians connected the Deluge tradition with their commemoration of the dead, which was done by symbolic ceremony, in which the priest placed the image of Osiris in a sacred ark and carried by the Nileinto the. Mediterranean. The ark floating upon the waters of the deep is a symbol to be found in the traditional wisdom of peoples all over the world. The name given to the city of Thebes or Th-aba is another word for the ark as a vessel of mankind. Kartha or Tyre, Astu or Athens, Urbs or Rome, are all names of cities reflecting this same idea. This ship is the same as the Barque (Boat of Ra) of the Egyptian temples. It is also the Celestial Ship, the Argonavis constellation, as well as the Ark of Salvation, the Argos ship.

Lots of Chinese Flood myths too
< http://www.sunypress.edu/p-4220-....na.aspx >
< http://www.mythome.org/fludmyt....t7.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This guy forastero does display impressive erudition.

Like, he knows to cut, paste and plagiarize horseshit about the flood from < this site. >

But, forastero, when did the flood occur? I seemed to have missed that.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 08 2011,13:57



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But, forastero, when did the flood occur? I seemed to have missed that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 08 2011,14:03

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,13:00)
Well gotta take my siesta before work but I'll be back
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's the equivalent to "sign on" in his part of the world?

< http://www.direct.gov.uk/en....0....0018757 >



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who can get Jobseeker's Allowance?
To get Jobseeker's Allowance you must be:
available for, capable of and actively seeking work
aged 18 or over but below State Pension age
working less than 16 hours per week on average, depending on the amount of your wage
in Great Britain
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 08 2011,14:11

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,12:56)
   
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,12:47)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
       

Of course they are going to fight it tooth and nail. In fact your article says:  "Recently, Jenkins et al. [4] proposed that these decay rate variations were correlated with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Jenkins et al. went on to suggest that the underlying mechanism responsible for this correlation might be some previously unobserved field emitted by the Sun or perhaps was the result of the (±3%) annual variation in the flux of solar
neutrinos reaching the Earth. If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.

Oh and Notice how the "correlated" is used? It doesnt actually dismiss the 3% decay rate but rather some correlations with the son.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"We observe no systematic  oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%."

No oscillations AT ALL, not just no oscillations based on earth orbit. Also 0.02% < 3%, IDiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, your looking at an older article about different isotopes.

Here is the new one

Oh and actually, Jenkins et al. did find 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 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now why should these be unaffected, but other isotopes affected?  There is no physical basis whatsoever for thinking that.  Observation of no variation in beta and alpha decays is directly relevant to rebutting claims of varing decay rates, even if they are different isotopes, even if the claim is made in a later paper, because they all have the same decay mechanisms (alpha and beta) and so all isotopes using the same mechanism should be affected.

But no, an IDiot is incapable of thinking for himself.

Requiring a physical basis = "fighting tooth and nail" to somebody who does not understand how science works.

By the way, if alpha decay is included, a third paper also see no variation in decay of Pu-238. P.S. Cooper, arXiv:0809.4248v1 [astro-ph] 24 September, 2008.  And

So we have:
Long established well known particle physics
knowledge of how alpha decay works (strong nuclear force)
Knowledge of how beta decay works (electroweak force)
Knowledge of how gamma decay works (nuclear excitation) 3 groups seeing no variation in decay rates
Previous reports of yearly variation disappearing when ratios are used, which cancels error in intrumentation

vs
only one group seeing variation
a requirement that particle physics be all wrong but nobody has noticed any other discrepancies
plus one Bozo
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 08 2011,14:12

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,13:17)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,12:44)
For the ancients, Noah's Flood not only symbolized wrath, but also cleansing, renewal, and fertility. Babylon and Egypt for example would come to worship the flooding Fertile Crescent and Nile. Manetho, an Egyptian historian who lived about 250 B.C.,states that there was a worldwide watery catastrophe in which one called Toth was saved along with the Seven Sages.The Egyptians connected the Deluge tradition with their commemoration of the dead, which was done by symbolic ceremony, in which the priest placed the image of Osiris in a sacred ark and carried by the Nileinto the. Mediterranean. The ark floating upon the waters of the deep is a symbol to be found in the traditional wisdom of peoples all over the world. The name given to the city of Thebes or Th-aba is another word for the ark as a vessel of mankind. Kartha or Tyre, Astu or Athens, Urbs or Rome, are all names of cities reflecting this same idea. This ship is the same as the Barque (Boat of Ra) of the Egyptian temples. It is also the Celestial Ship, the Argonavis constellation, as well as the Ark of Salvation, the Argos ship.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but when did it happen?

The date must be before all the cultures you mention? Plus time for them to become cultures?

So, what's your *best guess* as to the specific date of the flood?

A million years ago?

A hundred thousand?

What? Help a guy out here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He'll be right back after checking with his staff.  :)
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 08 2011,15:00

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:11)
     
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,09:21)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,00:29)
       
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,23:35)
     


Oops, another negative result, for a beta decaying nucleus!  Bayesian prior for "artifact" just got a lot bigger...

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

J.C. Hardy*, J.R. Goodwin and V.E. Iacob#
Cyclotron Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845-3366, USA
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%.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting but this gold isotope doesnt seem to have much  decay experimentation to go on? Maybe that's why they skipped the multi-year activity measure?

Like I said the council of elders wont give up their radiomagic wands with out a bitter fight
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Multi-year means continuous observations over multiple years, not observations spread over multi-years.  The gold isotope data is more than enough, and was using data already collected many years ago, same as the other paper which detected no variation.

You hanging on to this shows no ability to judge good from bad, you just think like a child: no contstant radiodecay rates -> no reliable dating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah so you conclude that all isotopes are equally stable when it comes to fluctuations?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You can't even get the terminology straight.  There are known environmental effects on decay rates, but they are not randomly up and down (fluctuation) or periodic (oscillation up and down).  I am only discussing the latter, which seems to be pathological science.  On the other hand, you are just ineffectually grasping at straws.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lets see if Ogre disagrees.

Oh and your first sentence seems contradictory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not if you read the paper and understand it.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As already mentioned, such measurements extending over months or years are susceptible to systematic effects and instabilities arising from changes in temperature, humidity, background radiation and instrumental drifts. To avoid these problems, we have followed a quite different approach, making seven individual half-life measurements of a shorter-lived radionuclide, 198Au (t1/2 = 2.7 d), spread out in time so that all seven measurements together span the full range of Earth-Sun distances. By depending on direct, relatively short half-life measurements, rather than separate activity measurements spaced over a long time, we substantially reduce the effects of environmental and instrumental variations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What else does Iacob say here?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
More recently, Schrader (2010) has pointed out that the variations in the PTB results disappear or completely change their structure when a different current-measurement technique is used. Nevertheless, Jenkins et al. (2010) have taken both data sets at face value and proposed much more fundamental causes, such as possible changes in the magnitudes of fundamental constants – the fine structure constant or the electron-to-proton mass ratio – or changes in the flux of solar neutrinos (see Fischbach et al., 2009). More recently, Fischbach et al. (2011) even speculate that new objects they call “neutrellos” could be responsible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Results that disappear when measured differently, most people would understand that the effect is probably not real.  But not a Bozo!
Posted by: Kristine on Nov. 08 2011,15:45

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,12:08)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:49)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:39)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:31)
       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:27)
We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If every ancient culture recorded the event:

A) You'd simply be able to tell me when those cultures dated it to.

B) Illogical. If the global flood killed all but a handful of people on the Ark then what "ancient cultures" were around to record the event at all? They were all dead!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Semetic, Hamitic,  and Japhetic groups of course whom agree on the existence many things without specific dates of origin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the descendants of Noah wrote down that there was a global flood? And that's how you know there was a global flood?

Where did they write it down?

So you *know* there was a global flood but can't bring yourself to put even an approximate date on the event?

Tell me then, were the Egyptians around during the flood?

Before the flood?

After the flood?

What's your best guess at a date for this "global flood" you just know happened?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like most of the ancients, via oral traditions. They also wrote on their staffs

Afterwords so many made pyramids in Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa, etc.. with similar zodiacs, sacrifices to pagan gods, god-kings all vying to be worshiped as false Messiahs and Flood heroes

Is it possible these structures were being built almost simultaneously by different civilizations separated by continents who would have known nothing about each other?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. Pyramids are structurally very stable.

If they knew about each other, and all are writing about the same Flood (and not a localized one) why didn't they all practice the Abrahamic religion then?
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 08 2011,16:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If they knew about each other, and all are writing about the same Flood (and not a localized one) why didn't they all practice the Abrahamic religion then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah. Well, you see, after that tower of babble thing, they couldn't talk to each other, so most of them lapsed in their faith, invented new language, new culture, and migrated to a different continent, after forgetting about their past. Then they wrote a story about something they'd forgotten about. (Ah well, memory is the second thing to go, after all.)
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 08 2011,17:05

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,10:23)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,17:47)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,01:35)
 
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:29)
Flat earth ...

Isaiah 11:12  
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Proverbs 8:27-  When he prepared the heavens, I was there, When he drew a circle on the face of the deep

Isaiah 40:22-  It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it's inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Also unmoving:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

I wont even start on the firmanent and vaults of heaven
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Hebrew Bible uses poems  consistent with  the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, such as in the Enuma Elish, which described a circular earth surrounded by water above and below, as illustrated by references to the "foundations of the earth" and the "circle of the earth. In numerous passages, the bible refers to the earth as a campus in relation to night and day, boundaries and winds (easterlies, northerlies etc) so the four corners or "wings" logically means north, south, east and west. For instance Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Nebuchadnezzar was in a prophetic dream-time state and thus able to see the earth from afar and seeing the ends of the continents.  

Likewise, in  Mathew, even if Satan can see through solid earth, his best vantage point to see, accuse, and influence all of the kingdoms would logically be from a distance like a "angel of [false] light" (imagine a parabolic beam), hence the name "prince of the power of the air". This is why there are so many depiction  of ancient gods giving of conic and oblique powers

Early Church fathers like Augustine and Constantine’s tutor Lactantius believed in a spherical earth. The early Christian also often depicted symbols of Christ over the sphere of the earth or angels holding a spherical earth.

The flat earth ties to Christians was based mostly on lies by bible hating humanists like John W. Draper and Andrew Dickson White   Russell, J. B. 1997. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback, Westport, Conn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you are saying while everybody else around them thought the world was flat, the early Jews knew it was spherical and instead of saying that our God told us that the earth is a sphere, they used the same flat earth language but only meant it metaphorically. Well explain then why we can't assert that they knew that the universe is 13 billion years old and the whole 7 day thing and the flood is metaphorical as well?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No they didnt all use a flat earth anology
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, your answer does not even make sense? I give a doesn't examples of Bible references to a flat fixed earth. The flat earthers say that there are in total 170 references in the Bible to a flat earth and your first response was to quote people from the middle ages, who as far as I know didn't write the Bible and your second response is simply

"No they didn't".

Cue the black night scene from Monty Python
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 08 2011,20:17

black knight maybe, i dunno, i am thinking more like terry bernandino on reno 911
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 08 2011,22:18

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:48)
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 07 2011,11:23)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:08)
Tracy, there is a solar constant too but even your Ogre agrees solar forces have gone through "lowered radiative output". Moreover, no one has yet to quote me saying or indicating that "laws" change so they are just playing semantics; but the interpretation of laws are modified and Einstein's expansion on Newton's Law of Gravity is a case in point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What an interesting dictionary you have in your head.  Einstein did not "expand" Newton's Law of Gravity.  He radically altered the way we think about gravity by introducing a completely novel concept.

You'd get along better if you used words the way everyone else does.  Just saying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you saying that Newton's laws or interpretations are not valid and why not?

"Let no one suppose, however, that the mighty work of Newton can really be superceded by relativity or any other theory. His great and lucid ideas will retain their unique significance for all time as the foundation of our whole modern conceptual structure in the sphere of natural philosophy" by Albert Einstein

“To the Master's honor all must turn, each in its track, without a sound, forever tracing Newton's ground.” by Albert Einstein

Newton discovered all kinds of things much from scratch, including various laws. Einstein merely extended upon Newton's gravity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I understand that you misread everything on purpose.  You think that it makes you look the martyr and that everyone is picking on you.  Well, you're right but not for the reasons you would like.  We're picking on you because you're dishonest.  The fact that you are obviously dishonest is lame and a blessing all at once.

So, for the lurkers it may help and the personal amusement it gives, you get response.  Your ego will far outlive your interest unless you come up with some substance.  But for now:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you saying that Newton's laws or interpretations are not valid and why not?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um.  No.  They aren't ultimately the best answer, but that doesn't matter nor is it the point.

The point which you so obviously ignored was that you don't know the definition of "expand".  Secondarily, you also don't know the relationship between Newton's Law of Gravitation and Relativity.

It's really that simple.  Try to to get bogged down in obfuscation.  This is really about dictionaries.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Let no one suppose, however, that the mighty work of Newton can really be superceded by relativity or any other theory. His great and lucid ideas will retain their unique significance for all time as the foundation of our whole modern conceptual structure in the sphere of natural philosophy" by Albert Einstein
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Obfuscation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Newton discovered all kinds of things much from scratch, including various laws. Einstein merely extended upon Newton's gravity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You finish with the same mistake as you began.  Meaningless rambling between doesn't change the fact that you haven't grasped the argument.  Einstein didn't extend Newton's Law of Gravitation, he fundamentally changed our concept of gravity.

Try to address what was said.  Again, using words as others do will help you mightily.  Others have told you this as well.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 09 2011,11:00

[quote=forastero,Nov. 08 2011,13:56]
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
... radium, which is a popular dating isotope and often used with lead and a daughter element of uranium.[/wuote]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um... no.

You display even more ignorance of radiometric dating methods than the average fundy loon.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 09 2011,11:34

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 09 2011,11:00)
[quote=forastero,Nov. 08 2011,13:56]
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
... radium, which is a popular dating isotope and often used with lead and a daughter element of uranium.[/wuote]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um... no.

You display even more ignorance of radiometric dating methods than the average fundy loon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Radium-226 (which is in the U-238 decay chain) has a half life of 1602 years.

So it would have a dating range about 1/4 that of Carbon-14.  Which would end up being about 15,000 years.

Of course Lead-214, which is four products away from Radium in this decay chain, has a half life of 26.8 minutes.

This took me less than 25 seconds to find.

forestaro is obviously not interested in learning what is REALLY going on in the world.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 09 2011,11:50

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2011,09:34)
forestaro is obviously not interested in learning what is REALLY going on in the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's been little evidence that forastero has read, let alone understood, many of his/her links and copy-and-paste posts.  (Darwin was writing in 1993, the universe contains 1080 atoms, sharks are dinosaurs...).  I assume he/she's Gish-galloping down the list at some YEC site.  I don't think "learning what is REALLY going on in the world" is high on forastero's priorities.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 09 2011,12:25

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 09 2011,11:50)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2011,09:34)
forestaro is obviously not interested in learning what is REALLY going on in the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's been little evidence that forastero has read, let alone understood, many of his/her links and copy-and-paste posts.  (Darwin was writing in 1993, the universe contains 1080 atoms, sharks are dinosaurs...).  I assume he/she's Gish-galloping down the list at some YEC site.  I don't think "learning what is REALLY going on in the world" is high on forastero's priorities.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree totally, though I think what he meant on the atoms things was 10^80.

Not that really changes anything.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 09 2011,12:44

With a little Googling, it turns out there is such a thing as using radium in dating, with some application to geochronology.

One group of methods are disequilibrium methods. Crudely, that means that they measure how far a system is from the secular equilibrium that is achieved in U decay to Pb after about 5-10 times the longest half-life of a daughter product in the chain. The most commonly used such method is U-Th disequilibrium. Uranium is somewhat soluble in water, but Thorium most definitely is not. So when U decay reaches Th in seawater, the Th precipitates out and the rest of the decay chain happens somewhere else. When U gets bound in a solid, such as being incorporated into coral or migrating into a buried bone from groundwater or being incorporated into a fish or many other things, the system starts to approach secular equilibrium with the entire decay chain taking place in the same place. As long as secular equilibrium is not reached, the "freezing" of uranium can be dated by how far the system is from secular equilibrium.

U-Th dating is good to about 350,000 years. Pb-Ra disequilibrium dating is good to a few thousand years.

There's also Ra-Th isochrons with Ba (chemically similar to Ra) as the normalizing isotope, good for several hundred years, but there are issues with the requirement of cogenetic samples having the same Ra/Ba ratios at solidification.

Plenty of technical explanation at < Radium Isotope Systematics in Nature Applications in Geochronology and Hydrogeochemistry >

None of these methods are useful for samples approaching the age of the Earth or a few orders of magnitude less.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 09 2011,13:24

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2011,10:25)
I agree totally, though I think what he meant on the atoms things was 10^80.

Not that really changes anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which illustrates my point about not reading what he's posting.  In isolation, it's the sort of error we've all done, but together with the rest...
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 09 2011,14:23

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 08 2011,12:06)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,10:27)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:21)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:15)
Again, all the scientist disagree with your dismissing of the possible consequences if the fluctuations are found to be true.

Again, many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, when was the flood then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even the Egyptians and Chinese who lived through it without noticing it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why would you expect people who didn't notice that they were dead to notice that they were buried in a Fludde?
Posted by: rossum on Nov. 09 2011,14:24

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2011,12:25)
I agree totally, though I think what he meant on the atoms things was 10^80.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that what he meant was to copy/paste something.  He was too lazy or incompetent to check that what he pasted read the same as what he copied.  That is an inclusive 'or' by the way.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not that really changes anything.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed not.  Copied rubbish is still rubbish, even with added typos.  After all, we all know that typos cannot add any extra information.  :)

rossum
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 09 2011,14:26

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 09 2011,12:44)
With a little Googling, it turns out there is such a thing as using radium in dating, with some application to geochronology.

One group of methods are disequilibrium methods. Crudely, that means that they measure how far a system is from the secular equilibrium that is achieved in U decay to Pb after about 5-10 times the longest half-life of a daughter product in the chain. The most commonly used such method is U-Th disequilibrium. Uranium is somewhat soluble in water, but Thorium most definitely is not. So when U decay reaches Th in seawater, the Th precipitates out and the rest of the decay chain happens somewhere else. When U gets bound in a solid, such as being incorporated into coral or migrating into a buried bone from groundwater or being incorporated into a fish or many other things, the system starts to approach secular equilibrium with the entire decay chain taking place in the same place. As long as secular equilibrium is not reached, the "freezing" of uranium can be dated by how far the system is from secular equilibrium.

U-Th dating is good to about 350,000 years. Pb-Ra disequilibrium dating is good to a few thousand years.

There's also Ra-Th isochrons with Ba (chemically similar to Ra) as the normalizing isotope, good for several hundred years, but there are issues with the requirement of cogenetic samples having the same Ra/Ba ratios at solidification.

Plenty of technical explanation at < Radium Isotope Systematics in Nature Applications in Geochronology and Hydrogeochemistry >

None of these methods are useful for samples approaching the age of the Earth or a few orders of magnitude less.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of equilibrium, finding a decay series in secular equilibrium is an argument against a young earth. I don't recall that point being explicitly made before.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 09 2011,14:51

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 09 2011,14:26)
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 09 2011,12:44)
With a little Googling, it turns out there is such a thing as using radium in dating, with some application to geochronology.

One group of methods are disequilibrium methods. Crudely, that means that they measure how far a system is from the secular equilibrium that is achieved in U decay to Pb after about 5-10 times the longest half-life of a daughter product in the chain. The most commonly used such method is U-Th disequilibrium. Uranium is somewhat soluble in water, but Thorium most definitely is not. So when U decay reaches Th in seawater, the Th precipitates out and the rest of the decay chain happens somewhere else. When U gets bound in a solid, such as being incorporated into coral or migrating into a buried bone from groundwater or being incorporated into a fish or many other things, the system starts to approach secular equilibrium with the entire decay chain taking place in the same place. As long as secular equilibrium is not reached, the "freezing" of uranium can be dated by how far the system is from secular equilibrium.

U-Th dating is good to about 350,000 years. Pb-Ra disequilibrium dating is good to a few thousand years.

There's also Ra-Th isochrons with Ba (chemically similar to Ra) as the normalizing isotope, good for several hundred years, but there are issues with the requirement of cogenetic samples having the same Ra/Ba ratios at solidification.

Plenty of technical explanation at < Radium Isotope Systematics in Nature Applications in Geochronology and Hydrogeochemistry >

None of these methods are useful for samples approaching the age of the Earth or a few orders of magnitude less.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of equilibrium, finding a decay series in secular equilibrium is an argument against a young earth. I don't recall that point being explicitly made before.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oh yeah!  Well, what if the DESIGNER made it that WAY!!!

Who looks dumb now???!
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 09 2011,22:24

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,14:11)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,12:56)
     
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,12:47)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
       

Of course they are going to fight it tooth and nail. In fact your article says:  "Recently, Jenkins et al. [4] proposed that these decay rate variations were correlated with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Jenkins et al. went on to suggest that the underlying mechanism responsible for this correlation might be some previously unobserved field emitted by the Sun or perhaps was the result of the (±3%) annual variation in the flux of solar
neutrinos reaching the Earth. If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.

Oh and Notice how the "correlated" is used? It doesnt actually dismiss the 3% decay rate but rather some correlations with the son.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"We observe no systematic  oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%."

No oscillations AT ALL, not just no oscillations based on earth orbit. Also 0.02% < 3%, IDiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, your looking at an older article about different isotopes.

Here is the new one

Oh and actually, Jenkins et al. did find 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 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now why should these be unaffected, but other isotopes affected?  There is no physical basis whatsoever for thinking that.  Observation of no variation in beta and alpha decays is directly relevant to rebutting claims of varing decay rates, even if they are different isotopes, even if the claim is made in a later paper, because they all have the same decay mechanisms (alpha and beta) and so all isotopes using the same mechanism should be affected.

But no, an IDiot is incapable of thinking for himself.

Requiring a physical basis = "fighting tooth and nail" to somebody who does not understand how science works.

By the way, if alpha decay is included, a third paper also see no variation in decay of Pu-238. P.S. Cooper, arXiv:0809.4248v1 [astro-ph] 24 September, 2008.  And

So we have:
Long established well known particle physics
knowledge of how alpha decay works (strong nuclear force)
Knowledge of how beta decay works (electroweak force)
Knowledge of how gamma decay works (nuclear excitation) 3 groups seeing no variation in decay rates
Previous reports of yearly variation disappearing when ratios are used, which cancels error in intrumentation

vs
only one group seeing variation
a requirement that particle physics be all wrong but nobody has noticed any other discrepancies
plus one Bozo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, radioisotopes have different decay events, sensitivities, and energy barriers that require a specific activation energy that reactants must surpass in order to nudge it into decaying.

...Btw, its not just decay of alpha and beta, but also positron, gamma emission, etc..

More importantly, how do you know that surrounding rocks are not contaminated with isotopes from surrounding materials and runoff?

What the fluctuating effects on radioisotopes produced via cosmic rays like C14 and Argon?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 09 2011,22:32

Wow... so much wrong in so few statements.  I count 8... anyone do better than that?  Of course, that's without looking anything up too.

Positrons?  Really?

Perhaps you should read up on ISO-FUCKING-CHRONS!!!
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 09 2011,23:09

Forastero, I have some questions pending regarding your cite vis the impact of environmental factors on decay rates.

1) Let us grant the 0.5% number cited in the Wikipedia article you use as a reference, arguendo (although your own reference also states that a number of experiments indicate that decay rates are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by external conditions).

That moves the onset of the Triassic from 2.5 million centuries in the past to ~2.48 million centuries in the past. It moves the onset of the Jurassic from ~1.996 million centuries in the past to ~1.98 million centuries. And it moves the end of the Cretaceous from 655,000 centuries in the past to 651,725 centuries in the past.

Given that, does the Wikipedia article you cite support your belief in a mythical flood with its attendant antediluvian and post-flood eco-zones, or does it not support the rejection of your imaginary chronology and, in large measure, support the standard chronology, even granting a contraction of the entire timeline by 0.5 percent?

2) When was the flood? An order of magnitude will do. Hundreds of years in the past? Thousands? Tens of Thousands? etc.  

You've made some assertions about geological eras relative to that flood, e.g. horseshit vis ante and post-diluvian "eco-zones."

But you seem only able to muster the cowardice of your convictions, in that you just can't bring yourself to state your belief regarding just when that flood occurred even in the most approximate terms.

Absent the stones to venture some estimate regarding that date, your assertions are completely empty - joining other of your claims for events in eras you don't believe to have occurred.

In your silence, you've betrayed your convictions thrice before the cock crowed. So sack up, Oh Mighty Caged Kong: when did the flood occur?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 09 2011,23:14

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,15:00)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:11)
     
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,09:21)
       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,00:29)
         
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,23:35)
     


Oops, another negative result, for a beta decaying nucleus!  Bayesian prior for "artifact" just got a lot bigger...

             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

J.C. Hardy*, J.R. Goodwin and V.E. Iacob#
Cyclotron Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77845-3366, USA
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%.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting but this gold isotope doesnt seem to have much  decay experimentation to go on? Maybe that's why they skipped the multi-year activity measure?

Like I said the council of elders wont give up their radiomagic wands with out a bitter fight
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Multi-year means continuous observations over multiple years, not observations spread over multi-years.  The gold isotope data is more than enough, and was using data already collected many years ago, same as the other paper which detected no variation.

You hanging on to this shows no ability to judge good from bad, you just think like a child: no contstant radiodecay rates -> no reliable dating.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah so you conclude that all isotopes are equally stable when it comes to fluctuations?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You can't even get the terminology straight.  There are known environmental effects on decay rates, but they are not randomly up and down (fluctuation) or periodic (oscillation up and down).  I am only discussing the latter, which seems to be pathological science.  On the other hand, you are just ineffectually grasping at straws.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Lets see if Ogre disagrees.

Oh and your first sentence seems contradictory.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not if you read the paper and understand it.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
As already mentioned, such measurements extending over months or years are susceptible to systematic effects and instabilities arising from changes in temperature, humidity, background radiation and instrumental drifts. To avoid these problems, we have followed a quite different approach, making seven individual half-life measurements of a shorter-lived radionuclide, 198Au (t1/2 = 2.7 d), spread out in time so that all seven measurements together span the full range of Earth-Sun distances. By depending on direct, relatively short half-life measurements, rather than separate activity measurements spaced over a long time, we substantially reduce the effects of environmental and instrumental variations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What else does Iacob say here?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
More recently, Schrader (2010) has pointed out that the variations in the PTB results disappear or completely change their structure when a different current-measurement technique is used. Nevertheless, Jenkins et al. (2010) have taken both data sets at face value and proposed much more fundamental causes, such as possible changes in the magnitudes of fundamental constants – the fine structure constant or the electron-to-proton mass ratio – or changes in the flux of solar neutrinos (see Fischbach et al., 2009). More recently, Fischbach et al. (2011) even speculate that new objects they call “neutrellos” could be responsible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Results that disappear when measured differently, most people would understand that the effect is probably not real.  But not a Bozo!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What papers? I do appreciate your confession on the effects of environmental stimuli on radioisotopes but you only provided one link and to a little abstract about a gold isotope.

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...
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,00:25

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 09 2011,23:09)
Forastero, I have some questions pending regarding your cite vis the impact of environmental factors on decay rates.

1) Let us grant the 0.5% number cited in the Wikipedia article you use as a reference, arguendo (although your own reference also states that a number of experiments indicate that decay rates are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by external conditions).

That moves the onset of the Triassic from 2.5 million centuries in the past to ~2.48 million centuries in the past. It moves the onset of the Jurassic from ~1.996 million centuries in the past to ~1.98 million centuries. And it moves the end of the Cretaceous from 655,000 centuries in the past to 651,725 centuries in the past.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"At first, the researchers tried to rationalize the seasonal fluctuations as the result of instrument error, perhaps caused by changing heat and humidity. But that idea fell apart when nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins noticed the decay rate of the short-lived isotope manganese-54 dropped slightly during a solar flare. In fact, the decrease began a good 36 hours before the flare occurred."

“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 >

Now with all those decay fluctuations happening just days apart please tell me why you believe that they wont have an accumulative affect?

Please tell me why y'all continually avoid the following questions

More importantly, how do you know that surrounding rocks are not contaminated with isotopes from surrounding materials and runoff?

How do you know that the fluctuating strength of the magnet field has no effects on radioisotopes produced via cosmic rays like C14 and Argon?

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
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,00:48

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 09 2011,23:09)
Given that, does the Wikipedia article you cite support your belief in a mythical flood with its attendant antediluvian and post-flood eco-zones, or does it not support the rejection of your imaginary chronology and, in large measure, support the standard chronology, even granting a contraction of the entire timeline by 0.5 percent?

2) When was the flood? An order of magnitude will do. Hundreds of years in the past? Thousands? Tens of Thousands? etc.  

You've made some assertions about geological eras relative to that flood, e.g. horseshit vis ante and post-diluvian "eco-zones."

But you seem only able to muster the cowardice of your convictions, in that you just can't bring yourself to state your belief regarding just when that flood occurred even in the most approximate terms.

Absent the stones to venture some estimate regarding that date, your assertions are completely empty - joining other of your claims for events in eras you don't believe to have occurred.

In your silence, you've betrayed your convictions thrice before the cock crowed. So sack up, Oh Mighty Caged Kong: when did the flood occur?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wikipedia has a radical liberal bias

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

You are forgetting that much of the megafauna and life in general life was devastated by demonically influenced men or Nephilim but God would however miraculously preserve them for us as fossils
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,00:55

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2011,22:32)
Wow... so much wrong in so few statements.  I count 8... anyone do better than that?  Of course, that's without looking anything up too.

Positrons?  Really?

Perhaps you should read up on ISO-FUCKING-CHRONS!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Positron emission or beta plus decay is a type of beta decay in which a proton is converted, via the weak force, to a neutron, releasing a positron

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?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,01:26

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2011,14:51)
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 09 2011,14:26)
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 09 2011,12:44)
With a little Googling, it turns out there is such a thing as using radium in dating, with some application to geochronology.

One group of methods are disequilibrium methods. Crudely, that means that they measure how far a system is from the secular equilibrium that is achieved in U decay to Pb after about 5-10 times the longest half-life of a daughter product in the chain. The most commonly used such method is U-Th disequilibrium. Uranium is somewhat soluble in water, but Thorium most definitely is not. So when U decay reaches Th in seawater, the Th precipitates out and the rest of the decay chain happens somewhere else. When U gets bound in a solid, such as being incorporated into coral or migrating into a buried bone from groundwater or being incorporated into a fish or many other things, the system starts to approach secular equilibrium with the entire decay chain taking place in the same place. As long as secular equilibrium is not reached, the "freezing" of uranium can be dated by how far the system is from secular equilibrium.

U-Th dating is good to about 350,000 years. Pb-Ra disequilibrium dating is good to a few thousand years.

There's also Ra-Th isochrons with Ba (chemically similar to Ra) as the normalizing isotope, good for several hundred years, but there are issues with the requirement of cogenetic samples having the same Ra/Ba ratios at solidification.

Plenty of technical explanation at < Radium Isotope Systematics in Nature Applications in Geochronology and Hydrogeochemistry >

None of these methods are useful for samples approaching the age of the Earth or a few orders of magnitude less.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Speaking of equilibrium, finding a decay series in secular equilibrium is an argument against a young earth. I don't recall that point being explicitly made before.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


oh yeah!  Well, what if the DESIGNER made it that WAY!!!

Who looks dumb now???!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In case you hadnt noticed, the decay that we have  been discussing all along is about radioisotopes striving for equilibrium and if evolutionists didnt "assume" that c14 was broken down at the same rate at which it is being produced; we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

The fact of the matter is, C14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating and the C14 in the earth's atmosphere is 20% out of secular equilibrium with the C14 breaking down by radioactive decay.  If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old. In fact, tree rings prove that C14 begins to falter after just 1000 years.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 10 2011,01:31

Who dates which fossils by the C14 method?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,01:34

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 09 2011,14:23)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 08 2011,12:06)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,10:27)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:21)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:15)
Again, all the scientist disagree with your dismissing of the possible consequences if the fluctuations are found to be true.

Again, many little variations here and there start to add up exponentially over time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, when was the flood then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even the Egyptians and Chinese who lived through it without noticing it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why would you expect people who didn't notice that they were dead to notice that they were buried in a Fludde?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The original Hamites, Japhites, and Semites survived it and   their descendants around the world reported it
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,01:39

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2011,11:34)
[quote=JonF,Nov. 09 2011,11:00]
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,13:56)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
... radium, which is a popular dating isotope and often used with lead and a daughter element of uranium.[/wuote]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um... no.

You display even more ignorance of radiometric dating methods than the average fundy loon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Radium-226 (which is in the U-238 decay chain) has a half life of 1602 years.

So it would have a dating range about 1/4 that of Carbon-14.  Which would end up being about 15,000 years.

Of course Lead-214, which is four products away from Radium in this decay chain, has a half life of 26.8 minutes.

This took me less than 25 seconds to find.

forestaro is obviously not interested in learning what is REALLY going on in the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How is that when it was you who originally said that radium wasnt used for dating?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,01:56

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 08 2011,22:18)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:48)
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 07 2011,11:23)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,11:08)
Tracy, there is a solar constant too but even your Ogre agrees solar forces have gone through "lowered radiative output". Moreover, no one has yet to quote me saying or indicating that "laws" change so they are just playing semantics; but the interpretation of laws are modified and Einstein's expansion on Newton's Law of Gravity is a case in point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What an interesting dictionary you have in your head.  Einstein did not "expand" Newton's Law of Gravity.  He radically altered the way we think about gravity by introducing a completely novel concept.

You'd get along better if you used words the way everyone else does.  Just saying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you saying that Newton's laws or interpretations are not valid and why not?

"Let no one suppose, however, that the mighty work of Newton can really be superceded by relativity or any other theory. His great and lucid ideas will retain their unique significance for all time as the foundation of our whole modern conceptual structure in the sphere of natural philosophy" by Albert Einstein

“To the Master's honor all must turn, each in its track, without a sound, forever tracing Newton's ground.” by Albert Einstein

Newton discovered all kinds of things much from scratch, including various laws. Einstein merely extended upon Newton's gravity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I understand that you misread everything on purpose.  You think that it makes you look the martyr and that everyone is picking on you.  Well, you're right but not for the reasons you would like.  We're picking on you because you're dishonest.  The fact that you are obviously dishonest is lame and a blessing all at once.

So, for the lurkers it may help and the personal amusement it gives, you get response.  Your ego will far outlive your interest unless you come up with some substance.  But for now:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are you saying that Newton's laws or interpretations are not valid and why not?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Um.  No.  They aren't ultimately the best answer, but that doesn't matter nor is it the point.

The point which you so obviously ignored was that you don't know the definition of "expand".  Secondarily, you also don't know the relationship between Newton's Law of Gravitation and Relativity.

It's really that simple.  Try to to get bogged down in obfuscation.  This is really about dictionaries.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"Let no one suppose, however, that the mighty work of Newton can really be superceded by relativity or any other theory. His great and lucid ideas will retain their unique significance for all time as the foundation of our whole modern conceptual structure in the sphere of natural philosophy" by Albert Einstein
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Obfuscation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Newton discovered all kinds of things much from scratch, including various laws. Einstein merely extended upon Newton's gravity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You finish with the same mistake as you began.  Meaningless rambling between doesn't change the fact that you haven't grasped the argument.  Einstein didn't extend Newton's Law of Gravitation, he fundamentally changed our concept of gravity.

Try to address what was said.  Again, using words as others do will help you mightily.  Others have told you this as well.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In his theory of universal gravitation first published in his Principia Mathematica (1687) Newton demonstrated that gravitation is described by rational laws. More than two hundred years later Einstein built upon Newton’s theory of gravitation in his general theory of relativity. With this work Einstein succeeded Newton in formulating basic laws of the universe. Bringing these two autograph manuscripts together links the achievements of Newton and Einstein in a poetic way.

< http://www.historyofscience.com/article....ary.php >

< http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >

"Let no one suppose, however, that the mighty work of Newton can really be superceded by relativity or any other theory. His great and lucid ideas will retain their unique significance for all time as the foundation of our whole modern conceptual structure in the sphere of natural philosophy" by Albert Einstein

“To the Master's honor all must turn, each in its track, without a sound, forever tracing Newton's ground.” by Albert Einstein
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,02:16

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 08 2011,17:05)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,10:23)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,17:47)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,01:35)
   
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 05 2011,04:29)
Flat earth ...

Isaiah 11:12  
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

Proverbs 8:27-  When he prepared the heavens, I was there, When he drew a circle on the face of the deep

Isaiah 40:22-  It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And it's inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Also unmoving:

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

I wont even start on the firmanent and vaults of heaven
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Hebrew Bible uses poems  consistent with  the ancient Middle Eastern cosmology, such as in the Enuma Elish, which described a circular earth surrounded by water above and below, as illustrated by references to the "foundations of the earth" and the "circle of the earth. In numerous passages, the bible refers to the earth as a campus in relation to night and day, boundaries and winds (easterlies, northerlies etc) so the four corners or "wings" logically means north, south, east and west. For instance Job 26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.

Nebuchadnezzar was in a prophetic dream-time state and thus able to see the earth from afar and seeing the ends of the continents.  

Likewise, in  Mathew, even if Satan can see through solid earth, his best vantage point to see, accuse, and influence all of the kingdoms would logically be from a distance like a "angel of [false] light" (imagine a parabolic beam), hence the name "prince of the power of the air". This is why there are so many depiction  of ancient gods giving of conic and oblique powers

Early Church fathers like Augustine and Constantine’s tutor Lactantius believed in a spherical earth. The early Christian also often depicted symbols of Christ over the sphere of the earth or angels holding a spherical earth.

The flat earth ties to Christians was based mostly on lies by bible hating humanists like John W. Draper and Andrew Dickson White   Russell, J. B. 1997. Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus & Modern Historians. Praeger Paperback, Westport, Conn.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you are saying while everybody else around them thought the world was flat, the early Jews knew it was spherical and instead of saying that our God told us that the earth is a sphere, they used the same flat earth language but only meant it metaphorically. Well explain then why we can't assert that they knew that the universe is 13 billion years old and the whole 7 day thing and the flood is metaphorical as well?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No they didnt all use a flat earth anology
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, your answer does not even make sense? I give a doesn't examples of Bible references to a flat fixed earth. The flat earthers say that there are in total 170 references in the Bible to a flat earth and your first response was to quote people from the middle ages, who as far as I know didn't write the Bible and your second response is simply

"No they didn't".

Cue the black night scene from Monty Python
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As with many societies, the flat earth society has many crazy ideas.

Its also obvious that most early Christian scientists and philosophers believed the earth to be a sphere and the ancient rabbis interpreted the days of creation as literal 24 hour days based on the the rotation of the sphere
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,02:20

Quote (Kristine @ Nov. 08 2011,15:45)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,12:08)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:49)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:39)
       
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 08 2011,11:31)
       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:27)
We dont rightly know exactly yet but every ancient culture recorded the event
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If every ancient culture recorded the event:

A) You'd simply be able to tell me when those cultures dated it to.

B) Illogical. If the global flood killed all but a handful of people on the Ark then what "ancient cultures" were around to record the event at all? They were all dead!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The Semetic, Hamitic,  and Japhetic groups of course whom agree on the existence many things without specific dates of origin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the descendants of Noah wrote down that there was a global flood? And that's how you know there was a global flood?

Where did they write it down?

So you *know* there was a global flood but can't bring yourself to put even an approximate date on the event?

Tell me then, were the Egyptians around during the flood?

Before the flood?

After the flood?

What's your best guess at a date for this "global flood" you just know happened?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like most of the ancients, via oral traditions. They also wrote on their staffs

Afterwords so many made pyramids in Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa, etc.. with similar zodiacs, sacrifices to pagan gods, god-kings all vying to be worshiped as false Messiahs and Flood heroes

Is it possible these structures were being built almost simultaneously by different civilizations separated by continents who would have known nothing about each other?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes. Pyramids are structurally very stable.

If they knew about each other, and all are writing about the same Flood (and not a localized one) why didn't they all practice the Abrahamic religion then?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My second sentence explains that corruption
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,02:26

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,14:11)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,12:56)
     
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,12:47)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
       

Of course they are going to fight it tooth and nail. In fact your article says:  "Recently, Jenkins et al. [4] proposed that these decay rate variations were correlated with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Jenkins et al. went on to suggest that the underlying mechanism responsible for this correlation might be some previously unobserved field emitted by the Sun or perhaps was the result of the (±3%) annual variation in the flux of solar
neutrinos reaching the Earth. If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.

Oh and Notice how the "correlated" is used? It doesnt actually dismiss the 3% decay rate but rather some correlations with the son.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"We observe no systematic  oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%."

No oscillations AT ALL, not just no oscillations based on earth orbit. Also 0.02% < 3%, IDiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, your looking at an older article about different isotopes.

Here is the new one

Oh and actually, Jenkins et al. did find 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 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now why should these be unaffected, but other isotopes affected?  There is no physical basis whatsoever for thinking that.  Observation of no variation in beta and alpha decays is directly relevant to rebutting claims of varing decay rates, even if they are different isotopes, even if the claim is made in a later paper, because they all have the same decay mechanisms (alpha and beta) and so all isotopes using the same mechanism should be affected.

But no, an IDiot is incapable of thinking for himself.

Requiring a physical basis = "fighting tooth and nail" to somebody who does not understand how science works.

By the way, if alpha decay is included, a third paper also see no variation in decay of Pu-238. P.S. Cooper, arXiv:0809.4248v1 [astro-ph] 24 September, 2008.  And

So we have:
Long established well known particle physics
knowledge of how alpha decay works (strong nuclear force)
Knowledge of how beta decay works (electroweak force)
Knowledge of how gamma decay works (nuclear excitation) 3 groups seeing no variation in decay rates
Previous reports of yearly variation disappearing when ratios are used, which cancels error in intrumentation

vs
only one group seeing variation
a requirement that particle physics be all wrong but nobody has noticed any other discrepancies
plus one Bozo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean "one" Ivy league group doubting some of it's church doctrines and stirring up the congregation?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,02:30

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 10 2011,01:31)
Who dates which fossils by the C14 method?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


pseudoscientists

organics
Posted by: paragwinn on Nov. 10 2011,03:35

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 09 2011,23:26)
In case you hadnt noticed, the decay that we have  been discussing all along is about radioisotopes striving for equilibrium and if evolutionists didnt "assume" that c14 was broken down at the same rate at which it is being produced; we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

The fact of the matter is, C14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating and the C14 in the earth's atmosphere is 20% out of secular equilibrium with the C14 breaking down by radioactive decay.  If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old. In fact, tree rings prove that C14 begins to falter after just 1000 years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< C-14 dating and it's reliability >

eta:non-carbon-dated boldness for strawman's sake.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 10 2011,04:04

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,00:48)
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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For such an event the evidence would be massive and seen worldwide.

What layer in the geological column is pre-flood and which is post-flood? What layer is the "flood"? What layer represents flood sediments?

And how do you explain this:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......olithic >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The art of the Upper Paleolithic is the oldest undisputed prehistoric art, originating in the Aurignacian archaeological culture of Europe and the Levant some 40,000 years ago, and continues to the Mesolithic (the beginning Holocene) about 12,000 years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So if 20,000 years ago there were two people at what rate does the population have to grow to get to the several billions we now have?

The same question, but let's say the flood killed everybody 10,000 years ago. At what rate does the population have to grow to get to current figures by today?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 10 2011,06:51

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,01:48)
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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just can't bring yourself to do it, can you? As I said, the cowardice of your convictions.

Vis Wikipedia's bias: It's your cite dude. If you would like to say that the article in fact does not support your view, and attribute that to their liberal bias, be my guest. Does it, or does it not? See if you can summon the courage to answer that simple question.

But your response will do: It is your belief that the flood occurred within the last 20,000 years - indeed that the earth itself is "probably" under 20,000 years old.  

Of course, the scientific consensus is that the earth is 4.54 billion years old.

So, then, it is your argument that:

1) environmental fluctuations can result in changes in radiometric decay rates of up to 0.5%

2) these and similar errors can "accumulate" to the point that dated objects (such as the earth) are estimated to to 227,000 times older than they actually are (4,540,000,000/20,000 = 227,000).

Rather like: Upon my discovery that when the speedometer of my car reads 70 miles per hour I am actually traveling 70.35 mph, I am justified in concluding that at times I may have moved down the interstate at over 15 million miles per hour.

Because small errors may accumulate.

[Edits. Because I can.]

ETA: That was it: post #4,000.  

Although it could be #908,000,000. Cause there could be an error counting posts.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 10 2011,07:08

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,02:30)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 10 2011,01:31)
Who dates which fossils by the C14 method?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


pseudoscientists

organics
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly correct.  

Creationists have long brought fossils of ages they knew were beyond effective carbon dating to labs and had them carbon dated... resulting is massively confusing dates.

Of course, no real scientist would do this.

BTW: Bill is exactly right.  You, forastero, are too chicken to require the same level of detail for your own notions as the science position.

You think anything we can't explain is evidence for you.  But you can't even tell us how old the Earth is and any evidence for your position.  

BTW: Do you now admit that nothing exploded in the Big Bang?  If not, then what exploded?
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 10 2011,07:35

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 09 2011,23:24)

More importantly, how do you know that surrounding rocks are not contaminated with isotopes from surrounding materials and runoff?

What the fluctuating effects on radioisotopes produced via cosmic rays like C14 and Argon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you knew jackshit about radiometric dating, or if your sources knew jackshit about radiometric dating, you'd know the answer to both those questions.

Many techniques, including the most widely used ones in geology, indicate when there has been gain or loss of relevant material (so we know when they should not be trusted), and some often produce a valid date even if there has been gain or loss of relevant material.

The fluctuating effects on radiometric decay due to cosmic rays is zero. The fluctuating amount of 14C in the atmosphere due to cosmic rays is accounted for by calibration against methods, radiometric and non-radiometric, that are not sensitive to such effects.

Moron.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 10 2011,07:36

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2011,23:32)
Wow... so much wrong in so few statements.  I count 8... anyone do better than that?  Of course, that's without looking anything up too.

Positrons?  Really?

Perhaps you should read up on ISO-FUCKING-CHRONS!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


U-Pb concordia-discordia dating too.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 10 2011,07:49

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-------------------


Because this is a terrible medium for presenting such material, and there's no reason to type it out when it's been done extremely well already.

In the extremely unlikely event that you are actually interested in learning something (hah!), < Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective >, < Isochron Dating >, and < The age of the Earth > (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.

Until then, your opinions are garbage.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 10 2011,07:51

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,02:39)
[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 09 2011,11:34]
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 09 2011,11:00)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,13:56)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
... radium, which is a popular dating isotope and often used with lead and a daughter element of uranium.[/wuote]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um... no.

You display even more ignorance of radiometric dating methods than the average fundy loon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Radium-226 (which is in the U-238 decay chain) has a half life of 1602 years.

So it would have a dating range about 1/4 that of Carbon-14.  Which would end up being about 15,000 years.

Of course Lead-214, which is four products away from Radium in this decay chain, has a half life of 26.8 minutes.

This took me less than 25 seconds to find.

forestaro is obviously not interested in learning what is REALLY going on in the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How is that when it was you who originally said that radium wasnt used for dating?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was wrong. See how easy that is?

However, methods involving radium are "niche" methods with extremely restricted applicability. I bet lots of experts in radiometric dating have never heard of them. Especially they are not relevant to the age of the Earth.  or the vast majority of fossils.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 10 2011,08:38

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,07:51)
[quote=forastero,Nov. 10 2011,02:39]
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2011,11:34)
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 09 2011,11:00)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,13:56)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
... radium, which is a popular dating isotope and often used with lead and a daughter element of uranium.[/wuote]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um... no.

You display even more ignorance of radiometric dating methods than the average fundy loon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Radium-226 (which is in the U-238 decay chain) has a half life of 1602 years.

So it would have a dating range about 1/4 that of Carbon-14.  Which would end up being about 15,000 years.

Of course Lead-214, which is four products away from Radium in this decay chain, has a half life of 26.8 minutes.

This took me less than 25 seconds to find.

forestaro is obviously not interested in learning what is REALLY going on in the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How is that when it was you who originally said that radium wasnt used for dating?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was wrong. See how easy that is?

However, methods involving radium are "niche" methods with extremely restricted applicability. I bet lots of experts in radiometric dating have never heard of them. Especially they are not relevant to the age of the Earth.  or the vast majority of fossils.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This exactly.

And forastero, I still haven't found anything that indicate Radium is used in radiometric dating... even if it IS used, then it can easily be corroborated by other means (like tree rings).

It is USELESS for things like fossils and the age of the Earth.

And you STILL haven't even shown that there is any problems with radiometric dating anyway.

You do realize that your 0.37% error rate given in ONE article that may have had some significant issues is LESS than the error range associated with the dating methods anyway?

You can twist words all you want forastero, you still haven't factually supported anything you have claimed.

No Flood.
No change in fundamental forces.
No challenge to evolution.

Nothing.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,11:06

Quote (paragwinn @ Nov. 10 2011,03:35)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 09 2011,23:26)
In case you hadnt noticed, the decay that we have  been discussing all along is about radioisotopes striving for equilibrium and if evolutionists didnt "assume" that c14 was broken down at the same rate at which it is being produced; we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

The fact of the matter is, C14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating and the C14 in the earth's atmosphere is 20% out of secular equilibrium with the C14 breaking down by radioactive decay.  If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old. In fact, tree rings prove that C14 begins to falter after just 1000 years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< C-14 dating and it's reliability >

eta:non-carbon-dated boldness for strawman's sake.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues  below, particularly JonF. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,11:09

Quote (paragwinn @ Nov. 10 2011,03:35)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 09 2011,23:26)
In case you hadnt noticed, the decay that we have  been discussing all along is about radioisotopes striving for equilibrium and if evolutionists didnt "assume" that c14 was broken down at the same rate at which it is being produced; we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

The fact of the matter is, C14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating and the C14 in the earth's atmosphere is 20% out of secular equilibrium with the C14 breaking down by radioactive decay.  If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old. In fact, tree rings prove that C14 begins to falter after just 1000 years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< C-14 dating and it's reliability >

eta:non-carbon-dated boldness for strawman's sake.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 10 2011,11:14

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,09:09)
Quote (paragwinn @ Nov. 10 2011,03:35)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 09 2011,23:26)
In case you hadnt noticed, the decay that we have  been discussing all along is about radioisotopes striving for equilibrium and if evolutionists didnt "assume" that c14 was broken down at the same rate at which it is being produced; we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

The fact of the matter is, C14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating and the C14 in the earth's atmosphere is 20% out of secular equilibrium with the C14 breaking down by radioactive decay.  If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old. In fact, tree rings prove that C14 begins to falter after just 1000 years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< C-14 dating and it's reliability >

eta:non-carbon-dated boldness for strawman's sake.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Muppet, until you've learned why "radioisotopes like C14 and Argon" is a stupid thing to say, the rest of us are wasting our time.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 10 2011,11:14

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,11:09)
That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Enough to allow a 20,000 year old earth?

It's not a trick question.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 10 2011,11:40

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:09)
Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like pretty much everything you've said, that's bullshit. The T.O. article acknowledges that the production of 14C in the atmosphere is affected by changes in the cosmic ray flux, which I already mentioned (and how that is compensated for). The rate of 14C decay, the rate of Ar40 decay, and the amount of Ar40 anywhere in the Universe, or the decay rate of any radioactive isotope, is not affected by cosmic rays, and the linked T.O. article does not claim otherwise. Which facts I already pointed out.

How about some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  < Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective >, < Isochron Dating >, and < The age of the Earth > (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 10 2011,11:42

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 10 2011,09:38)
And forastero, I still haven't found anything that indicate Radium is used in radiometric dating
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you re-read my posts you'll see that radium is very very occasionally used in radiometric dating, as a "niche" method that is applicable only the very particular circumstances and only for dates well under a million years. IOW, irrelevant to this discussion. But the method exists.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 10 2011,11:54

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,11:42)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 10 2011,09:38)
And forastero, I still haven't found anything that indicate Radium is used in radiometric dating
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you re-read my posts you'll see that radium is very very occasionally used in radiometric dating, as a "niche" method that is applicable only the very particular circumstances and only for dates well under a million years. IOW, irrelevant to this discussion. But the method exists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are correct.

Tell us forastero, how does a radioisotope that would vary by approximately 3 years (based on the data you provided) help you prove that the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old.

It sure does nothing to show that the weak nuclear force is changing.

(I'm really curious if this guy does any research beyond what is presented at AiG or wherever he's getting his krib sheet.  Let's see if he finds any recent research...)
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,11:57

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2011,04:04)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,00:48)
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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For such an event the evidence would be massive and seen worldwide.

What layer in the geological column is pre-flood and which is post-flood? What layer is the "flood"? What layer represents flood sediments?

And how do you explain this:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......olithic >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The art of the Upper Paleolithic is the oldest undisputed prehistoric art, originating in the Aurignacian archaeological culture of Europe and the Levant some 40,000 years ago, and continues to the Mesolithic (the beginning Holocene) about 12,000 years ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So if 20,000 years ago there were two people at what rate does the population have to grow to get to the several billions we now have?

The same question, but let's say the flood killed everybody 10,000 years ago. At what rate does the population have to grow to get to current figures by today?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good Question and again, that layer is found in all so called periods and I am actually interested in working more deeply on this question.

Do a study on compound interest in investing and you will have a better understanding of accumulative effects in both population and fluctuating decay rates. If r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n, then after n years, the population produced by the eight survivors of the Flood = 8(1+r/100)n.

For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.

On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.

< http://creation.com/where-a....-people >
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,12:02

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 10 2011,08:38)
[quote=JonF,Nov. 10 2011,07:51]
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,02:39)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2011,11:34)
 
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 09 2011,11:00)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,13:56)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
... radium, which is a popular dating isotope and often used with lead and a daughter element of uranium.[/wuote]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um... no.

You display even more ignorance of radiometric dating methods than the average fundy loon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Radium-226 (which is in the U-238 decay chain) has a half life of 1602 years.

So it would have a dating range about 1/4 that of Carbon-14.  Which would end up being about 15,000 years.

Of course Lead-214, which is four products away from Radium in this decay chain, has a half life of 26.8 minutes.

This took me less than 25 seconds to find.

forestaro is obviously not interested in learning what is REALLY going on in the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How is that when it was you who originally said that radium wasnt used for dating?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was wrong. See how easy that is?

However, methods involving radium are "niche" methods with extremely restricted applicability. I bet lots of experts in radiometric dating have never heard of them. Especially they are not relevant to the age of the Earth.  or the vast majority of fossils.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This exactly.

And forastero, I still haven't found anything that indicate Radium is used in radiometric dating... even if it IS used, then it can easily be corroborated by other means (like tree rings).

It is USELESS for things like fossils and the age of the Earth.

And you STILL haven't even shown that there is any problems with radiometric dating anyway.

You do realize that your 0.37% error rate given in ONE article that may have had some significant issues is LESS than the error range associated with the dating methods anyway?

You can twist words all you want forastero, you still haven't factually supported anything you have claimed.

No Flood.
No change in fundamental forces.
No challenge to evolution.

Nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 10 2011,12:18

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:02)
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-------------------


I'm still waiting to hear how whole civilizations destroyed by the global flood recorded the even on their staffs and passed the story down to future generations.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 10 2011,12:24

Quote (muppet @ Nov. 10 2011,12:57)
On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



god you are stupid

yeah if evilution was true then nobody would ever die and there would be people eleventy meters thick over the whole planet
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 10 2011,12:27


Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,12:38

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,11:40)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:09)
Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like pretty much everything you've said, that's bullshit. The T.O. article acknowledges that the production of 14C in the atmosphere is affected by changes in the cosmic ray flux, which I already mentioned (and how that is compensated for). The rate of 14C decay, the rate of Ar40 decay, and the amount of Ar40 anywhere in the Universe, or the decay rate of any radioactive isotope, is not affected by cosmic rays, and the linked T.O. article does not claim otherwise. Which facts I already pointed out.

How about some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  < Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective >, < Isochron Dating >, and < The age of the Earth > (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Cosmic Ray Flux and these quotes that you somehow missed.

“The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. ….Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. “  (Strahler, 1987, p.158)

Btw, AR40 and C14 are cosmogenic radioisotopes produced by cosmic rays.

Btw 2, you also seem to be projecting your own inabilities to put arguments in your own words? Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. It doesnt mean though those surrounding rocks were not all drenched and for millennia by the same radioisotopic contamination. It also doesnt dismiss the fact that scientists have such a bias that they throw out any estimates that dont fit their preconceived agendas. Agendas further  verified by all the the recent  brouhaha about fluctuating decay fluctuations.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,12:52

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:27)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dont buy that supremacism

Each technology and each so called age (neolithic, mesolithic. paleolithis) when looked at individually shows a digression through time (lower, middle, upper). in some cases, you can find intact layers with from deeper to higher but usually these tools are actually spread throughout most sites so its hard to know who was using what and maybe why Neanderthal is thought to have used so many different technolgies. Hiedelburg man also is found among many different technologies throughout Europe and since he may have been smarter than his descendant, it makes since that he could have made better tools
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 10 2011,12:56

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:38)
It also doesnt dismiss the fact that scientists have such a bias that they throw out any estimates that dont fit their preconceived agendas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Citation please.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 10 2011,12:58

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,11:57)
For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At what mortality rate?

What average number of children per couple?

If you don't know these basics then it seems to me your claim is not supported!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 10 2011,13:01

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:02)
[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 10 2011,08:38]
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,07:51)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,02:39)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 09 2011,11:34)
 
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 09 2011,11:00)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,13:56)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
... radium, which is a popular dating isotope and often used with lead and a daughter element of uranium.[/wuote]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um... no.

You display even more ignorance of radiometric dating methods than the average fundy loon.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Radium-226 (which is in the U-238 decay chain) has a half life of 1602 years.

So it would have a dating range about 1/4 that of Carbon-14.  Which would end up being about 15,000 years.

Of course Lead-214, which is four products away from Radium in this decay chain, has a half life of 26.8 minutes.

This took me less than 25 seconds to find.

forestaro is obviously not interested in learning what is REALLY going on in the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How is that when it was you who originally said that radium wasnt used for dating?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was wrong. See how easy that is?

However, methods involving radium are "niche" methods with extremely restricted applicability. I bet lots of experts in radiometric dating have never heard of them. Especially they are not relevant to the age of the Earth.  or the vast majority of fossils.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This exactly.

And forastero, I still haven't found anything that indicate Radium is used in radiometric dating... even if it IS used, then it can easily be corroborated by other means (like tree rings).

It is USELESS for things like fossils and the age of the Earth.

And you STILL haven't even shown that there is any problems with radiometric dating anyway.

You do realize that your 0.37% error rate given in ONE article that may have had some significant issues is LESS than the error range associated with the dating methods anyway?

You can twist words all you want forastero, you still haven't factually supported anything you have claimed.

No Flood.
No change in fundamental forces.
No challenge to evolution.

Nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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-------------------


The so far mythical calibration errors.

Look, just tell us where you're kribbing this from and then we can get the straight scoop without being filtered through you.

Tell you what, why don't you, just to prove your interested in learning, post the first page of google scholar hits when you type in "radiocarbon dating calibration".
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 10 2011,13:01

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:52)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:27)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dont buy that supremacism

Each technology and each so called age (neolithic, mesolithic. paleolithis) when looked at individually shows a digression through time (lower, middle, upper). in some cases, you can find intact layers with from deeper to higher but usually these tools are actually spread throughout most sites so its hard to know who was using what and maybe why Neanderthal is thought to have used so many different technolgies. Hiedelburg man also is found among many different technologies throughout Europe and since he may have been smarter than his descendant, it makes since that he could have made better tools
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ERR, Its a chart about how many people existed at certain historic times with 'ages' superimposed for reference. I'm not sure what you think it is. But it highlights your 'doubling model' in a historical context is gibberish. Population growth was enabled first by the agrarian revolution and then the industrial revolution.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 10 2011,13:03

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:18)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:02)
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-------------------


I'm still waiting to hear how whole civilizations destroyed by the global flood recorded the even on their staffs and passed the story down to future generations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And still waiting.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,13:04

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 10 2011,12:24)
Quote (muppet @ Nov. 10 2011,12:57)
On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



god you are stupid

yeah if evilution was true then nobody would ever die and there would be people eleventy meters thick over the whole planet
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oops I meant to 2 million years ago

Oh but thats right, you still think erectus heidelbergensis, antecessor, Neanderthal, etc.. were all apes
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 10 2011,13:04

and, people die after they're born.

you stupid little twit
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,13:05

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,13:03)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:18)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:02)
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-------------------


I'm still waiting to hear how whole civilizations destroyed by the global flood recorded the even on their staffs and passed the story down to future generations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And still waiting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do a study on ancient scriptures and oral traditions
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,13:06

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 10 2011,13:04)
and, people die after they're born.

you stupid little twit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah and leave behind bones and tools
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 10 2011,13:06

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,14:04)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 10 2011,12:24)
Quote (muppet @ Nov. 10 2011,12:57)
On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



god you are stupid

yeah if evilution was true then nobody would ever die and there would be people eleventy meters thick over the whole planet
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oops I meant to 2 million years ago

Oh but thats right, you still think erectus heidelbergensis, antecessor, Neanderthal, etc.. were all apes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no, i don't, but i do think you are quite possibly one of the stupidest posters on the entire internet.  why the fuck are you here again?  to wave around your personality disorder?  aint' PT enough for you, you have this urge to ensure that every literate person within reach of a computer knows just how much of a dishonest and intellectually bankrupt dimwit you can be?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,13:12

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 10 2011,13:06)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,14:04)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 10 2011,12:24)
 
Quote (muppet @ Nov. 10 2011,12:57)
On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



god you are stupid

yeah if evilution was true then nobody would ever die and there would be people eleventy meters thick over the whole planet
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oops I meant to 2 million years ago

Oh but thats right, you still think erectus heidelbergensis, antecessor, Neanderthal, etc.. were all apes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


no, i don't, but i do think you are quite possibly one of the stupidest posters on the entire internet.  why the fuck are you here again?  to wave around your personality disorder?  aint' PT enough for you, you have this urge to ensure that every literate person within reach of a computer knows just how much of a dishonest and intellectually bankrupt dimwit you can be?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dimwit with the logos

According to the epics of ancient Greek epics,   first signs of the agony of defeat in debate were the use of ad hominems  against those under the influence with the logos
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 10 2011,13:15

me calling you a dipshit dimwit is not an ad hominem you ignorant little man

me saying that the rest of this pile of bullshit, that you keep on shoveling, is wrong because you are a dipshit dimwit ignorant little pustule, that would be an ad hominem.

you are even stupider than you can recognize.  I recommend holding your breath til Jesus returns
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 10 2011,13:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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-------------------


That's accusing scientists as a group of ignoring basic stuff continuously for decades, yet keeping their jobs in spite of this.

This isn't talking about one or a few people making a mistake, it's talking about the whole group of them.

Besides which, I seem to recall that what I've read on this subject included discussion of both of those problems, and the methods used to counter them.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 10 2011,13:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh but thats right, you still think erectus heidelbergensis, antecessor, Neanderthal, etc.. were all apes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course they were apes. So are we.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 10 2011,13:19

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2011,12:58)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,11:57)
For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At what mortality rate?

What average number of children per couple?

If you don't know these basics then it seems to me your claim is not supported!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I gave you the rate with the most extreme mortality rate

Your goalpost only proves that you cant disprove the equation?
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 10 2011,13:22

For that population rate computation, keep in mind the number of people that had to be in Egypt at the time the pyramids were built.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 10 2011,13:28

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38)
     
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,11:40)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:09)
Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like pretty much everything you've said, that's bullshit. The T.O. article acknowledges that the production of 14C in the atmosphere is affected by changes in the cosmic ray flux, which I already mentioned (and how that is compensated for). The rate of 14C decay, the rate of Ar40 decay, and the amount of Ar40 anywhere in the Universe, or the decay rate of any radioactive isotope, is not affected by cosmic rays, and the linked T.O. article does not claim otherwise. Which facts I already pointed out.

How about some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  < Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective >, < Isochron Dating >, and < The age of the Earth > (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Cosmic Ray Flux and these quotes that you somehow missed.

“The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. ….Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. “  (Strahler, 1987, p.158)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup. Like I said, the rate of production of 14C varies and is compensated for, and the rate of decay does not vary. Sometimes more 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time, and sometimes less 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time. No problemo.

I have Strahler at home, I'll check those ellipses.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw, AR40 and C14 are cosmogenic radioisotopes produced by cosmic rays.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Caught by my typo! 40Ar (your capital R is incorrect) is stable, the result of the decay of 40K. 38Ar and 36Ar are indeed cosmogenic, but that is irrelevant to the age of the Earth and fossils.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw 2, you also seem to be projecting your own inabilities to put arguments in your own words? Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. It doesnt mean though those surrounding rocks were not all drenched and for millennia by the same radioisotopic contamination.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You still don't have the faintest idea of how isochron dating works. When you figure it out, from the links I gave, maybe we can have a discussion.

(In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used. And you haven't a clue from whence samples come).

It's worth noting that the vast majority of the many dates produced in the last two decades or so, including the oldest minerals and the oldest rocks found to date, came from U-Pb concordia-discordia dating. Even the creationist RATE group acknowledges that the lead found in zircons and similar samples is all a result of the decay of uranium in-situ and the only explanation that might possibly work is vastly accelerated radioactive decay:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past (Humphreys, 2000, pp. 335–337). We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that “old” radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth—at today’s rates—of nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(< D. R. Humphreys, S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, & A. A. Snelling, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay >). Emphasis in original.

Too bad for creationists that this AND would have subtle side effects, such as killing all life twice over from heat and radiation, and leaving the Earth's surface molten for millenia. See < RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems >.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It also doesnt dismiss the fact that scientists have such a bias that they throw out any estimates that dont fit their preconceived agendas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've seen this claim so many times, and never any data to back it up. You could get some if you wanted. There's a USGS lab in Menlo Park, California, that's been doing dating for decades. It's a government agency. Request their records of  lab tests, using the FOIA if necessary. Correlate those tests to publications. I've suggested this many times, but nobody's done it.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Agendas further  verified by all the the recent  brouhaha about fluctuating decay fluctuations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ain't no brouhaha. Just scientists calmly doing science, turning up possible decay variations that are six orders of magnitude too small to support your scenario.

Still waiting for some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  < Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective >, < Isochron Dating >, and < The age of the Earth > (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.

But it appears you're so afraid of reality you can't even acknowledge the existence of those links.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 10 2011,13:29

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:05)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,13:03)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:18)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:02)
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-------------------


I'm still waiting to hear how whole civilizations destroyed by the global flood recorded the even on their staffs and passed the story down to future generations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And still waiting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do a study on ancient scriptures and oral traditions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Erm no. Tell me how cultures who are completely wiped out i.e. not on the boat, manage to pass anything down.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 10 2011,13:48

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 09 2011,22:24)
   
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,14:11)
       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,12:56)
             
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,12:47)
             
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
       

Of course they are going to fight it tooth and nail. In fact your article says:  "Recently, Jenkins et al. [4] proposed that these decay rate variations were correlated with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Jenkins et al. went on to suggest that the underlying mechanism responsible for this correlation might be some previously unobserved field emitted by the Sun or perhaps was the result of the (±3%) annual variation in the flux of solar
neutrinos reaching the Earth. If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.

Oh and Notice how the "correlated" is used? It doesnt actually dismiss the 3% decay rate but rather some correlations with the son.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"We observe no systematic  oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%."

No oscillations AT ALL, not just no oscillations based on earth orbit. Also 0.02% < 3%, IDiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, your looking at an older article about different isotopes.

{snip more of the same}

Now why should these be unaffected, but other isotopes affected?  There is no physical basis whatsoever for thinking that.  Observation of no variation in beta and alpha decays is directly relevant to rebutting claims of varing decay rates, even if they are different isotopes, even if the claim is made in a later paper, because they all have the same decay mechanisms (alpha and beta) and so all isotopes using the same mechanism should be affected.

But no, an IDiot is incapable of thinking for himself.

Requiring a physical basis = "fighting tooth and nail" to somebody who does not understand how science works.

By the way, if alpha decay is included, a third paper also see no variation in decay of Pu-238. P.S. Cooper, arXiv:0809.4248v1 [astro-ph] 24 September, 2008.  And

So we have:
Long established well known particle physics
knowledge of how alpha decay works (strong nuclear force)
Knowledge of how beta decay works (electroweak force)
Knowledge of how gamma decay works (nuclear excitation) 3 groups seeing no variation in decay rates
Previous reports of yearly variation disappearing when ratios are used, which cancels error in intrumentation

vs
only one group seeing variation
a requirement that particle physics be all wrong but nobody has noticed any other discrepancies
plus one Bozo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let the handwaving commence!

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, radioisotopes have different decay events, sensitivities, and energy barriers that require a specific activation energy that reactants must surpass in order to nudge it into decaying.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Allow me to quote what wikipedia says about alpha decay:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alpha decay, like other cluster decays, is fundamentally a quantum tunneling process. Unlike beta decay, alpha decay is governed by the interplay between the nuclear force and the electromagnetic force.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How is the distance from the sun (10^8 of km) going to affect the strong nuclear force (range of only 10^-15 m)?  
How does it affect the coulomb repulsion between the protons of the nucleus?  
Answer: it can't.
Observation from Cassini space craft: It didn't.

{irrelevancies and other hand-waving deleted}

I have only been talking about a claimed solar effect on radioactive decay, not any other environmental effects.  The fact that you do not understand this is not my problem, but yours.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 10 2011,13:55

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:19)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2011,12:58)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,11:57)
For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


At what mortality rate?

What average number of children per couple?

If you don't know these basics then it seems to me your claim is not supported!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I gave you the rate with the most extreme mortality rate

Your goalpost only proves that you cant disprove the equation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, you mean this:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Don't see any equation there. Show your working!

How many people were alive when the pyramids were built?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 10 2011,14:00

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:06)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 10 2011,13:04)
and, people die after they're born.

you stupid little twit
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah and leave behind bones and tools
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


and these mysterious staffs from every culture that recorded the Global Flood.  Could you tell us more about them, please?
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 10 2011,14:27

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,13:22)
For that population rate computation, keep in mind the number of people that had to be in Egypt at the time the pyramids were built.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Ooh, this is fun. >

Given the FLOOD was 4500 years ago and the population of the world at the height of the Egyptian empire (2030 BC) was 23,000,000ish, lets see if that gibes.

I plugged in modern day death rates (generous on my part I think).

I used a birth rate of every woman of childbearing age having 4 children in their lives.

What number do we come up with?

10,040 people.  We seem to be short a few.

Well, people had lots and lots of children then.  And let's put in a more probable set of death rates.  Let's go with:

births per childbearing woman = 8

Death rates: 1000, 6000, 3000, 7000  (Which I think is still very generous, 1% infant mortality and lots elderly still bopping about in ancient times).

We get 23ish million people.

Are these parameters correct, forastero?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 10 2011,14:56

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 10 2011,14:27)
Are these parameters correct, forastero?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And if not, what are the correct parameters forastero?

Bonus points: How do you know what the correct parameters are forastero?

poned.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 10 2011,15:02

< A critique of the SciCre population argument >.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 10 2011,15:30

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 10 2011,13:02)
< A critique of the SciCre population argument >.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As this is likely to be too many long words for the muppet, here's the money shot:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

World Population    Date       Event
 
              17          2566 BC  Construction of Great Pyramid
         2,729          1332 BC  Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten dies
         5,000          1185 BC  Trojan War
                         ~1200 BC  Hebrew exodus, # of males = 603,550 (excluding Levites)
        32,971           776 BC  First Olympic games
        87,507           490 BC  Greek wars with Persia
      133,744           387 BC  Brennus' Sack of Rome
      586,678             28 BC  Augustus' census of Rome (70 to 100 million counted)
      655,683               1 AD  Nice date
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: JonF on Nov. 10 2011,15:54

Wotta maroon!!

   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38)
   
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,11:40)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:09)
Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like pretty much everything you've said, that's bullshit. The T.O. article acknowledges that the production of 14C in the atmosphere is affected by changes in the cosmic ray flux, which I already mentioned (and how that is compensated for). The rate of 14C decay, the rate of Ar40 decay, and the amount of Ar40 anywhere in the Universe, or the decay rate of any radioactive isotope, is not affected by cosmic rays, and the linked T.O. article does not claim otherwise. Which facts I already pointed out.

How about some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  < Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective >, < Isochron Dating >, and < The age of the Earth > (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Cosmic Ray Flux and these quotes that you somehow missed.

“The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. ….Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. “  (Strahler, 1987, p.158)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That quote does not appear in the linked page at T.O., nor does it appear in Strahler. What does appear at T.O. is:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate,while at other times the decay rate will be the larger.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(Strahler, 1987, p.158)

Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



IOW, you can't even copy and paste. You mixed up Strahler's and Mason's words into one quote attributed to Strahler.

Here's a more complete selection from Strahler:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One authority from mainstream science, cited by Morris in support of the greater production than decay of C-14, is Richard E. Lingenfelter (Morris, 1975, p. 164). Lingenfelter states:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On comparing the calculated value of the carbon 14 production rate, averaged over the last ten solar cycles, of 2.50 ± 0.50 C14 atoms per square centimeter per second with the most recent estimates of the decay rate of 1.8 ± 0.2 . . . and 1.9 ± 0.2 . . ., there is strong indication, despite the large errors, that the present natural production rate exceeds the natural decay rate by as much as 25 per cent. (1963, p. 51)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(Note: Citations of sources given by Lingenfelter have been deleted from the above paragraph).

What Morris does not tell the reader is that Lingenfelter continues his discussion by attributing the discrepancy between production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a subject we have explored in earlier pages. Lingenfelter's paper was written in 1963, before the cycles of C-14 variation we described had been fully documented. The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. As curves A and C in Figure 19.5 show, before about -3000 y., C-14 was decaying faster than it was being formed, with the result that the C-14 ages are too young. The creation scientists ignore this newer information, which is readily available to the public in published journals; it was available in 1974 when the creationist textbook was published. They have made their calculations from the unsupportable assumption that the C-14 production rate has always been greater than the decay rate by the percentage observed today. That is an untenable assumption in the light of evidence to the contrary. Creationists have used the same form of unsupported extrapolation that we found in creation scientist Barnes's calculation of a limiting age of the earth by assumed constant decay rate of the earth's magnetic field.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





And, of course, you ignored the many rrefutaions of your claims made in the T.O. article.

Wotta maroon!
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 10 2011,22:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Ooh, this is fun. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What units are the birth and death rates in for that input screen? Are there assumed decimal points? Is it percent per decade?

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 10 2011,22:44

Sometimes posters will say things like "The fact that you do not understand this is not my problem, but yours."

I'm left thinking that while the original problem is in one who refuses to listen, it is also a problem for the one who isn't listened to, albeit a different kind of problem.

Henry
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 10 2011,23:05

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,22:44)
Sometimes posters will say things like "The fact that you do not understand this is not my problem, but yours."

I'm left thinking that while the original problem is in one who refuses to listen, it is also a problem for the one who isn't listened to, albeit a different kind of problem.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

You can however, shove a firehose in his direction and let fly.
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 11 2011,11:06

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,22:43)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
< Ooh, this is fun. >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What units are the birth and death rates in for that input screen? Are there assumed decimal points? Is it percent per decade?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The birth rate is number of live births per female of childbearing age (assumed to be 20yo - 40 yo for this calculation)

The death rate is given in number of deaths per 100,000 people.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 11 2011,20:15

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,13:28)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38)
     
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,11:40)
       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:09)
Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like pretty much everything you've said, that's bullshit. The T.O. article acknowledges that the production of 14C in the atmosphere is affected by changes in the cosmic ray flux, which I already mentioned (and how that is compensated for). The rate of 14C decay, the rate of Ar40 decay, and the amount of Ar40 anywhere in the Universe, or the decay rate of any radioactive isotope, is not affected by cosmic rays, and the linked T.O. article does not claim otherwise. Which facts I already pointed out.

How about some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  < Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective >, < Isochron Dating >, and < The age of the Earth > (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Cosmic Ray Flux and these quotes that you somehow missed.

“The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. ….Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. “  (Strahler, 1987, p.158)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup. Like I said, the rate of production of 14C varies and is compensated for, and the rate of decay does not vary. Sometimes more 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time, and sometimes less 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time. No problemo.

I have Strahler at home, I'll check those ellipses.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw, AR40 and C14 are cosmogenic radioisotopes produced by cosmic rays.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Caught by my typo! 40Ar (your capital R is incorrect) is stable, the result of the decay of 40K. 38Ar and 36Ar are indeed cosmogenic, but that is irrelevant to the age of the Earth and fossils.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw 2, you also seem to be projecting your own inabilities to put arguments in your own words? Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. It doesnt mean though those surrounding rocks were not all drenched and for millennia by the same radioisotopic contamination.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You still don't have the faintest idea of how isochron dating works. When you figure it out, from the links I gave, maybe we can have a discussion.

(In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used. And you haven't a clue from whence samples come).

It's worth noting that the vast majority of the many dates produced in the last two decades or so, including the oldest minerals and the oldest rocks found to date, came from U-Pb concordia-discordia dating. Even the creationist RATE group acknowledges that the lead found in zircons and similar samples is all a result of the decay of uranium in-situ and the only explanation that might possibly work is vastly accelerated radioactive decay:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past (Humphreys, 2000, pp. 335–337). We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that “old” radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth—at today’s rates—of nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(< D. R. Humphreys, S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, & A. A. Snelling, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay >). Emphasis in original.

Too bad for creationists that this AND would have subtle side effects, such as killing all life twice over from heat and radiation, and leaving the Earth's surface molten for millenia. See < RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems >.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It also doesnt dismiss the fact that scientists have such a bias that they throw out any estimates that dont fit their preconceived agendas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've seen this claim so many times, and never any data to back it up. You could get some if you wanted. There's a USGS lab in Menlo Park, California, that's been doing dating for decades. It's a government agency. Request their records of  lab tests, using the FOIA if necessary. Correlate those tests to publications. I've suggested this many times, but nobody's done it.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Agendas further  verified by all the the recent  brouhaha about fluctuating decay fluctuations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ain't no brouhaha. Just scientists calmly doing science, turning up possible decay variations that are six orders of magnitude too small to support your scenario.

Still waiting for some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  < Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective >, < Isochron Dating >, and < The age of the Earth > (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.

But it appears you're so afraid of reality you can't even acknowledge the existence of those links.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually you insisted that my quote:"fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays." was bull____.

Second of all, cosmic rays can effect any radioistope and your own priests cry atmospheric contamination of all the coal and dinosaurs found with C14.  

Thirdly, your whole point here is mute do to the fact that the C14 dating depends upon the how much carbon is in the atmosphere. To say that science knows how to counter this is just more radiomagic hand waving because there is no way to calibrate carbon fluctuations that far back. Plus, atmospheric carbon ratios are not even the same everywhere .

Fourthly, the whole point of Isochron dating is the use of more thane one daughter isotopes. Geologists today observe the present proportions of parent and daughter isotopes in a sample and use those proportions to date the sample but isochron dating takes it a step further by measuring more than one type of daughter isotope

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.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 11 2011,20:44

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:15)
Thirdly, your whole point here is mute do to the fact...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Mute do to the fact" forastero? Really?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...that the C14 dating depends upon the how much carbon is in the atmosphere...[blah blah blah]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, then, it is your assertion that:

1) environmental fluctuations can result in changes in radiometric decay rates of up to 0.5%

2) these and similar errors can "accumulate" to the point that dated objects (such as the earth) have been estimated to be 227,000 times older than they actually are (4,540,000,000/20,000 = 227,000).

Rather like: Upon my discovery that when the speedometer of my car reads 70 miles per hour I am actually traveling 70.35 mph, I am justified in concluding that I may at times have moved down the interstate at over 15 million miles per hour.

Because small errors may accumulate.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 11 2011,20:56

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 10 2011,13:48)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 09 2011,22:24)
     
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,14:11)
       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,12:56)
             
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,12:47)
               
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42)
       

Of course they are going to fight it tooth and nail. In fact your article says:  "Recently, Jenkins et al. [4] proposed that these decay rate variations were correlated with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Jenkins et al. went on to suggest that the underlying mechanism responsible for this correlation might be some previously unobserved field emitted by the Sun or perhaps was the result of the (±3%) annual variation in the flux of solar
neutrinos reaching the Earth. If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.

Oh and Notice how the "correlated" is used? It doesnt actually dismiss the 3% decay rate but rather some correlations with the son.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"We observe no systematic  oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%."

No oscillations AT ALL, not just no oscillations based on earth orbit. Also 0.02% < 3%, IDiot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Again, your looking at an older article about different isotopes.

{snip more of the same}

Now why should these be unaffected, but other isotopes affected?  There is no physical basis whatsoever for thinking that.  Observation of no variation in beta and alpha decays is directly relevant to rebutting claims of varing decay rates, even if they are different isotopes, even if the claim is made in a later paper, because they all have the same decay mechanisms (alpha and beta) and so all isotopes using the same mechanism should be affected.

But no, an IDiot is incapable of thinking for himself.

Requiring a physical basis = "fighting tooth and nail" to somebody who does not understand how science works.

By the way, if alpha decay is included, a third paper also see no variation in decay of Pu-238. P.S. Cooper, arXiv:0809.4248v1 [astro-ph] 24 September, 2008.  And

So we have:
Long established well known particle physics
knowledge of how alpha decay works (strong nuclear force)
Knowledge of how beta decay works (electroweak force)
Knowledge of how gamma decay works (nuclear excitation) 3 groups seeing no variation in decay rates
Previous reports of yearly variation disappearing when ratios are used, which cancels error in intrumentation

vs
only one group seeing variation
a requirement that particle physics be all wrong but nobody has noticed any other discrepancies
plus one Bozo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let the handwaving commence!

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, radioisotopes have different decay events, sensitivities, and energy barriers that require a specific activation energy that reactants must surpass in order to nudge it into decaying.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Allow me to quote what wikipedia says about alpha decay:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alpha decay, like other cluster decays, is fundamentally a quantum tunneling process. Unlike beta decay, alpha decay is governed by the interplay between the nuclear force and the electromagnetic force.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How is the distance from the sun (10^8 of km) going to affect the strong nuclear force (range of only 10^-15 m)?  
How does it affect the coulomb repulsion between the protons of the nucleus?  
Answer: it can't.
Observation from Cassini space craft: It didn't.

{irrelevancies and other hand-waving deleted}

I have only been talking about a claimed solar effect on radioactive decay, not any other environmental effects.  The fact that you do not understand this is not my problem, but yours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First of all, if you had really read about strong nuclear force you wouldnt be defending his disagreement to the fact that different radioisotopes have different sensitivities and binding energies.

Secondly, strong nuclear and electromagnetic forces dont necessarily make an isotope the most stable. In fact, its the alpha decaying isotopes that are are usually the most unstable.

Thirdly, Quantum tunneling is actually what allows the reaction to proceed through the energy barrier and cosmic rays can induce it.

Fourthly, why are you so uptight about alpha decaying radioisotopes when it seems logical that most fossils are dated with beta decaying isotopes?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 11 2011,21:00

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 11 2011,20:44)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:15)
Thirdly, your whole point here is mute do to the fact...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Mute do to the fact" forastero? Really?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...that the C14 dating depends upon the how much carbon is in the atmosphere...[blah blah blah]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, then, it is your assertion that:

1) environmental fluctuations can result in changes in radiometric decay rates of up to 0.5%

2) these and similar errors can "accumulate" to the point that dated objects (such as the earth) have been estimated to be 227,000 times older than they actually are (4,540,000,000/20,000 = 227,000).

Rather like: Upon my discovery that when the speedometer of my car reads 70 miles per hour I am actually traveling 70.35 mph, I am justified in concluding that I may at times have moved down the interstate at over 15 million miles per hour.

Because small errors may accumulate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are confusing our c14 ratio problem with the decay fluctuation discussion
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 11 2011,21:03

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 10 2011,14:27)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,13:22)
For that population rate computation, keep in mind the number of people that had to be in Egypt at the time the pyramids were built.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Ooh, this is fun. >

Given the FLOOD was 4500 years ago and the population of the world at the height of the Egyptian empire (2030 BC) was 23,000,000ish, lets see if that gibes.

I plugged in modern day death rates (generous on my part I think).

I used a birth rate of every woman of childbearing age having 4 children in their lives.

What number do we come up with?

10,040 people.  We seem to be short a few.

Well, people had lots and lots of children then.  And let's put in a more probable set of death rates.  Let's go with:

births per childbearing woman = 8

Death rates: 1000, 6000, 3000, 7000  (Which I think is still very generous, 1% infant mortality and lots elderly still bopping about in ancient times).

We get 23ish million people.

Are these parameters correct, forastero?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lot of words but try an objective account with the formula and stats that "I" offered
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 11 2011,21:19

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,22:00)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 11 2011,20:44)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:15)
Thirdly, your whole point here is mute do to the fact...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Mute do to the fact" forastero? Really?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...that the C14 dating depends upon the how much carbon is in the atmosphere...[blah blah blah]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, then, it is your assertion that:

1) environmental fluctuations can result in changes in radiometric decay rates of up to 0.5%

2) these and similar errors can "accumulate" to the point that dated objects (such as the earth) have been estimated to be 227,000 times older than they actually are (4,540,000,000/20,000 = 227,000).

Rather like: Upon my discovery that when the speedometer of my car reads 70 miles per hour I am actually traveling 70.35 mph, I am justified in concluding that I may at times have moved down the interstate at over 15 million miles per hour.

Because small errors may accumulate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are confusing our c14 ratio problem with the decay fluctuation discussion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No muppet you are just talking empty bullshit and you know it.  If you don't like the error estimates RB provided why don't you show us yours, instead of just wanking yourself off with a buncha whiny fingersniffing conspiracy sobstory attention whoring.  

Or, why don't you try to go suck off a nuclear reactor?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 11 2011,21:27

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 11 2011,21:19)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,22:00)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 11 2011,20:44)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:15)
Thirdly, your whole point here is mute do to the fact...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Mute do to the fact" forastero? Really?
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...that the C14 dating depends upon the how much carbon is in the atmosphere...[blah blah blah]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, then, it is your assertion that:

1) environmental fluctuations can result in changes in radiometric decay rates of up to 0.5%

2) these and similar errors can "accumulate" to the point that dated objects (such as the earth) have been estimated to be 227,000 times older than they actually are (4,540,000,000/20,000 = 227,000).

Rather like: Upon my discovery that when the speedometer of my car reads 70 miles per hour I am actually traveling 70.35 mph, I am justified in concluding that I may at times have moved down the interstate at over 15 million miles per hour.

Because small errors may accumulate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are confusing our c14 ratio problem with the decay fluctuation discussion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No muppet you are just talking empty bullshit and you know it.  If you don't like the error estimates RB provided why don't you show us yours, instead of just wanking yourself off with a buncha whiny fingersniffing conspiracy sobstory attention whoring.  

Or, why don't you try to go suck off a nuclear reactor?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Ogre is the knight reduced to a pinky scratching at my boots, you are that pauper pitching poo from the protection of the roof
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 11 2011,21:36

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,22:00)
You are confusing our c14 ratio problem with the decay fluctuation discussion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You evaded answering the question when it was first posed in the context of decay rates. It is asked explicitly in those terms. Here is the question again:

Is it your assertion that:

1) environmental fluctuations can result in changes in radiometric decay rates of up to 0.5%?

2) these and similar errors, of similar magnitude, can "accumulate" to the point that you are justified in asserting objects (such as the earth) are estimated to be 227,000x older than they actually are (4,540,000,000/20,000 = 227,000)?

Rather like: Upon my discovery that when the speedometer of my car reads 70 miles per hour I am actually traveling 70.35 mph, I am justified in concluding that I may at times have moved down the interstate at over 15 million miles per hour.

Right?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 11 2011,22:07

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,15:54)
Wotta maroon!!

   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38)
     
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,11:40)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:09)
Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like pretty much everything you've said, that's bullshit. The T.O. article acknowledges that the production of 14C in the atmosphere is affected by changes in the cosmic ray flux, which I already mentioned (and how that is compensated for). The rate of 14C decay, the rate of Ar40 decay, and the amount of Ar40 anywhere in the Universe, or the decay rate of any radioactive isotope, is not affected by cosmic rays, and the linked T.O. article does not claim otherwise. Which facts I already pointed out.

How about some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  < Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective >, < Isochron Dating >, and < The age of the Earth > (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Cosmic Ray Flux and these quotes that you somehow missed.

“The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. ….Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. “  (Strahler, 1987, p.158)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That quote does not appear in the linked page at T.O., nor does it appear in Strahler. What does appear at T.O. is:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate,while at other times the decay rate will be the larger.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(Strahler, 1987, p.158)

Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



IOW, you can't even copy and paste. You mixed up Strahler's and Mason's words into one quote attributed to Strahler.

Here's a more complete selection from Strahler:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One authority from mainstream science, cited by Morris in support of the greater production than decay of C-14, is Richard E. Lingenfelter (Morris, 1975, p. 164). Lingenfelter states:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On comparing the calculated value of the carbon 14 production rate, averaged over the last ten solar cycles, of 2.50 ± 0.50 C14 atoms per square centimeter per second with the most recent estimates of the decay rate of 1.8 ± 0.2 . . . and 1.9 ± 0.2 . . ., there is strong indication, despite the large errors, that the present natural production rate exceeds the natural decay rate by as much as 25 per cent. (1963, p. 51)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(Note: Citations of sources given by Lingenfelter have been deleted from the above paragraph).

What Morris does not tell the reader is that Lingenfelter continues his discussion by attributing the discrepancy between production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a subject we have explored in earlier pages. Lingenfelter's paper was written in 1963, before the cycles of C-14 variation we described had been fully documented. The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. As curves A and C in Figure 19.5 show, before about -3000 y., C-14 was decaying faster than it was being formed, with the result that the C-14 ages are too young. The creation scientists ignore this newer information, which is readily available to the public in published journals; it was available in 1974 when the creationist textbook was published. They have made their calculations from the unsupportable assumption that the C-14 production rate has always been greater than the decay rate by the percentage observed today. That is an untenable assumption in the light of evidence to the contrary. Creationists have used the same form of unsupported extrapolation that we found in creation scientist Barnes's calculation of a limiting age of the earth by assumed constant decay rate of the earth's magnetic field.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





And, of course, you ignored the many rrefutaions of your claims made in the T.O. article.

Wotta maroon!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And of coarse you did not reveal the link that you are accusing me of misquoting. Here it is < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....14.html >

..and proving yall's chronic fear mongering propaganda

Moreover your article also seems dishonest about Tree Ring chronology when considering the following quotes.

Rod A. Savidge Ph.D. says: "As a tree physiologist who has devoted his career to understanding how trees make wood, I have made sufficient observations on tree rings and cambial growth to know that dendrochronology is not at all an exact science. Indeed, its activities include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill subjective expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when they contradict other data sets that have already been accepted. Such massaging of data cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered science; it merely demonstrates a total lack of rigor attending so-called dendrochronology "research". . . It would be a major step forward if dendrochronology could embrace the scientific method." New York Times, November of 2002

"In almost all branches of science, other than tree-ring studies, there is a check on the validity of published research: other researchers can, and often will, independently seek to replicate the research. For example, if a scientist does an experiment in a laboratory, comes to some interesting conclusion, and publishes this, then another scientist will replicate the experiment, in another laboratory, and if the conclusion is not the same, there will be some investigation. The result is (i) a scientist who publishes bogus research will be caught (at least if the research has importance and is not extremely expensive to replicate) and (ii) because all scientists know this, bogus science is rare. Tree-ring studies do not have this check, because the wood that forms the basis of a tree-ring study is irreplaceable: no other researchers can gather that wood.
Additionally, tree-ring investigators typically publish little more than conclusions. This is true everywhere, not just for Anatolia. Moreover, there is little competition among tree-ring investigators, in part”and this is crucial” because investigators in one region typically do not have access to data from other regions. The result is a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and yet are accountable to no one." "The central conclusion is clear: Anatolian tree-ring studies are very untrustworthy and the problems with the work should be plain to anyone who has familiarity with the field. This is a serious matter. Consider that the work has been published in respected research journals and been ongoing for many years. How could this have happened?" Douglas J. Keenan, Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy, The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, United Kingdom; doug.keenan@informath.org, 16 March 2004 ( < http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a....04a.pdf > ) See also: Douglas Keenan, Why Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean are too Early, Radiocarbon, Vol 44, Nr 1, 2002, p 225–237 ( < http://www.informath.org/14C02a.....02a.pdf > )


From the "Symposium Organized By International Atomic Energy Authority", H. E. Suess, UCLA, "...presented the latest determinations... as adduced from the current activity of dendrochronologically dated growth rings of the Californian bristle cone pine....The carbon14 concentration increases rather steadily during this time… These results confirm the change in carbon14 concentration.... and indicate that the concentration increases..."  (Science, Vol.157, p.726)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 11 2011,22:20

Lots of claims, still no actual... you know... evidence.

But that's what we expect.  So sad.

Just out of curiosity forastero, you do know that what we have observed over almost 13 billion light years indicates that there is no change in the weak nuclear force for the last 13 billion years.

But don't let those pesky little things like facts stop you.  Most people don't know that stuff anyway and might believe you if you talk fast enough and sciency enough.

You are making claims, you back them up.  If you can't, just admit and let's move on.  Oh, that's right, you never admit to anything.

What exactly exploded to cause the Big Bang?  Was it chemical, nuclear, sub-nuclear?

Since you can't seem to figure out when the flood was, dating is suspect after all, then just point us to the layer of rock that is post flood.  

You see, during a flood of that magnitude (something like 9,000,000,000,000* gallons of water per second for 40 days) would create a massive discontinuity in the geologic rock... one that would cover the entire world.  The post flood formation would also cover the entire world and it could not be any precipitate rock, volcanic rock, metamorphic rock, or biologically altered or modified rock (there being no post-flood biology).  So that pretty much leaves sandstones and siltstones.

Now, forastero, you have made a mistake.  There are 26 locations on the planet Earth that have a complete geologic column, that is from Precambrian rock in an unbroken (i.e. no discontinuities) to present day material.  So all you need to do is correlate the rock layers in those 26 locations and find the one that matches the flood.  That should almost be easy.

I'll be waiting for your results (I won't hold my breath though).

___
* This number is completely made up.  I've done the calculations before and really don't care to do them again right now.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 11 2011,22:33

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 11 2011,21:36)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,22:00)
You are confusing our c14 ratio problem with the decay fluctuation discussion
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You evaded answering the question when it was first posed in the context of decay rates. It is asked explicitly in those terms. Here is the question again:

Is it your assertion that:

1) environmental fluctuations can result in changes in radiometric decay rates of up to 0.5%?

2) these and similar errors, of similar magnitude, can "accumulate" to the point that you are justified in asserting objects (such as the earth) are estimated to be 227,000x older than they actually are (4,540,000,000/20,000 = 227,000)?

Rather like: Upon my discovery that when the speedometer of my car reads 70 miles per hour I am actually traveling 70.35 mph, I am justified in concluding that I may at times have moved down the interstate at over 15 million miles per hour.

Right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 11 2011,22:36

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,22:07)
And of coarse you did not reveal the link that you are accusing me of misquoting. Here it is < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......14.html >

..and proving yall's chronic fear mongering propaganda

Moreover your article also seems dishonest about Tree Ring chronology when considering the following quotes.

Rod A. Savidge Ph.D. says: "As a tree physiologist who has devoted his career to understanding how trees make wood, I have made sufficient observations on tree rings and cambial growth to know that dendrochronology is not at all an exact science. Indeed, its activities include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill subjective expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when they contradict other data sets that have already been accepted. Such massaging of data cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered science; it merely demonstrates a total lack of rigor attending so-called dendrochronology "research". . . It would be a major step forward if dendrochronology could embrace the scientific method." New York Times, November of 2002

"In almost all branches of science, other than tree-ring studies, there is a check on the validity of published research: other researchers can, and often will, independently seek to replicate the research. For example, if a scientist does an experiment in a laboratory, comes to some interesting conclusion, and publishes this, then another scientist will replicate the experiment, in another laboratory, and if the conclusion is not the same, there will be some investigation. The result is (i) a scientist who publishes bogus research will be caught (at least if the research has importance and is not extremely expensive to replicate) and (ii) because all scientists know this, bogus science is rare. Tree-ring studies do not have this check, because the wood that forms the basis of a tree-ring study is irreplaceable: no other researchers can gather that wood.
Additionally, tree-ring investigators typically publish little more than conclusions. This is true everywhere, not just for Anatolia. Moreover, there is little competition among tree-ring investigators, in part”and this is crucial” because investigators in one region typically do not have access to data from other regions. The result is a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and yet are accountable to no one." "The central conclusion is clear: Anatolian tree-ring studies are very untrustworthy and the problems with the work should be plain to anyone who has familiarity with the field. This is a serious matter. Consider that the work has been published in respected research journals and been ongoing for many years. How could this have happened?" Douglas J. Keenan, Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy, The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, United Kingdom; doug.keenan@informath.org, 16 March 2004 ( < http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a....04a.pdf > ) See also: Douglas Keenan, Why Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean are too Early, Radiocarbon, Vol 44, Nr 1, 2002, p 225–237 ( < http://www.informath.org/14C02a.....02a.pdf > )


From the "Symposium Organized By International Atomic Energy Authority", H. E. Suess, UCLA, "...presented the latest determinations... as adduced from the current activity of dendrochronologically dated growth rings of the Californian bristle cone pine....The carbon14 concentration increases rather steadily during this time… These results confirm the change in carbon14 concentration.... and indicate that the concentration increases..."  (Science, Vol.157, p.726)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry dude, Keenan is a hack.  He's a former FINANCIAL TRADER.

I'm sure that gives him complete insight into such things as Global warming, Ancient Chinese Astronomy, radiocarbon dating, and US copyright law.

I've found several rebuttals to his other work, however, the tree-ring report you link to has not been peer-reviewed since the manuscript was created (dated 2006).  I'm guessing that, considering his other faulty work was peer-reviewed and published that this one won't be because it is simply wrong.

PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH... not the opinions of a financial adviser.

Thanks
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 11 2011,22:44

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,22:33)
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-------------------


OK, let's see.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 errors.  Anyone find anymore (admittedly, I use 'beliefs without evidence' as a scientific error.)

Dude, have you ever read anything about radiometric dating that isn't from creationist tracts?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 11 2011,22:53

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,23:33)
Actually, I believe its probably often much more than .05% and the perhaps weekly decay fluctuations accumulate to totally alter any reasonable measurement beyond 5000 years  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is not responsive to my question. I'll repeat it.

Is it your belief that sources of error such as the alleged 0.5% radiometric fluctuations (and all other alleged similar errors) are of sufficient magnitude to result in estimated ages, such as the age of the earth, that are 227,000x the actual values?

For reference, a 0.5% error in my speedometer would result in a reading of 70 mph when I was actually traveling at 70.35 mph, while you are alleging errors of magnitude such that when my indicated speed is 70 mph I may in fact be traveling over 2% of the speed of light.

Is that your belief?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,00:56

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 11 2011,22:36)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,22:07)
And of coarse you did not reveal the link that you are accusing me of misquoting. Here it is < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......14.html >

..and proving yall's chronic fear mongering propaganda

Moreover your article also seems dishonest about Tree Ring chronology when considering the following quotes.

Rod A. Savidge Ph.D. says: "As a tree physiologist who has devoted his career to understanding how trees make wood, I have made sufficient observations on tree rings and cambial growth to know that dendrochronology is not at all an exact science. Indeed, its activities include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill subjective expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when they contradict other data sets that have already been accepted. Such massaging of data cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered science; it merely demonstrates a total lack of rigor attending so-called dendrochronology "research". . . It would be a major step forward if dendrochronology could embrace the scientific method." New York Times, November of 2002

"In almost all branches of science, other than tree-ring studies, there is a check on the validity of published research: other researchers can, and often will, independently seek to replicate the research. For example, if a scientist does an experiment in a laboratory, comes to some interesting conclusion, and publishes this, then another scientist will replicate the experiment, in another laboratory, and if the conclusion is not the same, there will be some investigation. The result is (i) a scientist who publishes bogus research will be caught (at least if the research has importance and is not extremely expensive to replicate) and (ii) because all scientists know this, bogus science is rare. Tree-ring studies do not have this check, because the wood that forms the basis of a tree-ring study is irreplaceable: no other researchers can gather that wood.
Additionally, tree-ring investigators typically publish little more than conclusions. This is true everywhere, not just for Anatolia. Moreover, there is little competition among tree-ring investigators, in part”and this is crucial” because investigators in one region typically do not have access to data from other regions. The result is a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and yet are accountable to no one." "The central conclusion is clear: Anatolian tree-ring studies are very untrustworthy and the problems with the work should be plain to anyone who has familiarity with the field. This is a serious matter. Consider that the work has been published in respected research journals and been ongoing for many years. How could this have happened?" Douglas J. Keenan, Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy, The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, United Kingdom; doug.keenan@informath.org, 16 March 2004 ( < http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a....04a.pdf > ) See also: Douglas Keenan, Why Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean are too Early, Radiocarbon, Vol 44, Nr 1, 2002, p 225–237 ( < http://www.informath.org/14C02a.....02a.pdf > )


From the "Symposium Organized By International Atomic Energy Authority", H. E. Suess, UCLA, "...presented the latest determinations... as adduced from the current activity of dendrochronologically dated growth rings of the Californian bristle cone pine....The carbon14 concentration increases rather steadily during this time… These results confirm the change in carbon14 concentration.... and indicate that the concentration increases..."  (Science, Vol.157, p.726)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry dude, Keenan is a hack.  He's a former FINANCIAL TRADER.

I'm sure that gives him complete insight into such things as Global warming, Ancient Chinese Astronomy, radiocarbon dating, and US copyright law.

I've found several rebuttals to his other work, however, the tree-ring report you link to has not been peer-reviewed since the manuscript was created (dated 2006).  I'm guessing that, considering his other faulty work was peer-reviewed and published that this one won't be because it is simply wrong.

PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH... not the opinions of a financial adviser.

Thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If he is good enough University of Arizona’s Radiocarbon and the following peer reviewed publications then he’s definitely good enough for here

"The fraud allegation against some climatic research of Wei-Chyung Wang", Energy & Environment, 18: 985–995 (2007).

"Defence of planetary conjunctions for early Chinese chronology is unmerited", Journal of Astronomical History and Heritage, 10: 142–147 (2007).
 
"Radiocarbon dates from Iron Age Gordion are confounded", Ancient West & East, 3: 100–103 (2004).

"Volcanic ash retrieved from the GRIP ice core is not from Thera", Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 4 (2003).

"Why early-historical radiocarbon dates downwind from the Mediterranean are too early", Radiocarbon, 44: 225–237 (2002).  

"Astro-historiographic chronologies of early China are unfounded", East Asian History, 23: 61–68 (2002).

Btw, Radiocarbon is the main international journal of record for research articles and date lists relevant to 14C and other radioisotopes and techniques used in archaeological, geophysical, oceanographic, and related dating. The journal is published quarterly. We also publish conference proceedings and monographs on topics related to our fields of interest. < http://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/holding....?r=http >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 12 2011,01:55

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 11 2011,22:53)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,23:33)
Actually, I believe its probably often much more than .05% and the perhaps weekly decay fluctuations accumulate to totally alter any reasonable measurement beyond 5000 years  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is not responsive to my question. I'll repeat it.

Is it your belief that sources of error such as the alleged 0.5% radiometric fluctuations (and all other alleged similar errors) are of sufficient magnitude to result in estimated ages, such as the age of the earth, that are 227,000x the actual values?

For reference, a 0.5% error in my speedometer would result in a reading of 70 mph when I was actually traveling at 70.35 mph, while you are alleging errors of magnitude such that when my indicated speed is 70 mph I may in fact be traveling over 2% of the speed of light.

Is that your belief?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or maybe the other direction, where you'd be traveling at about 1.2 furlongs per fortnight?

(Or 1.38e-4 m/s, if you like.)
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 12 2011,06:58

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:15)
 
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,13:28)
?
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38)
         
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,11:40)
        ?
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:09)
Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like pretty much everything you've said, that's bullshit. The T.O. article acknowledges that the production of 14C in the atmosphere is affected by changes in the cosmic ray flux, which I already mentioned (and how that is compensated for). The rate of 14C decay, the rate of Ar40 decay, and the amount of Ar40 anywhere in the Universe, or the decay rate of any radioactive isotope, is not affected by cosmic rays, and the linked T.O. article does not claim otherwise. Which facts I already pointed out.

How about some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  < Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective >, < Isochron Dating >, and < The age of the Earth > (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Cosmic Ray Flux and these quotes that you somehow missed.

“The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. ….Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. “  (Strahler, 1987, p.158)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup. Like I said, the rate of production of 14C varies and is compensated for, and the rate of decay does not vary. Sometimes more 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time, and sometimes less 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time. No problemo.

I have Strahler at home, I'll check those ellipses.
    ?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw, AR40 and C14 are cosmogenic radioisotopes produced by cosmic rays.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Caught by my typo! 40Ar (your capital R is incorrect) is stable, the result of the decay of 40K. 38Ar and 36Ar are indeed cosmogenic, but that is irrelevant to the age of the Earth and fossils.
    ?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw 2, you also seem to be projecting your own inabilities to put arguments in your own words? Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. It doesnt mean though those surrounding rocks were not all drenched and for millennia by the same radioisotopic contamination.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You still don't have the faintest idea of how isochron dating works. When you figure it out, from the links I gave, maybe we can have a discussion.

(In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used. And you haven't a clue from whence samples come).

It's worth noting that the vast majority of the many dates produced in the last two decades or so, including the oldest minerals and the oldest rocks found to date, came from U-Pb concordia-discordia dating. Even the creationist RATE group acknowledges that the lead found in zircons and similar samples is all a result of the decay of uranium in-situ and the only explanation that might possibly work is vastly accelerated radioactive decay:
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past (Humphreys, 2000, pp. 335–337). We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that “old??&#65533; radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth—at today’s rates—of nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(< D. R. Humphreys, S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, & A. A. Snelling, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay >). Emphasis in original.

Too bad for creationists that this AND would have subtle side effects, such as killing all life twice over from heat and radiation, and leaving the Earth's surface molten for millenia. See < RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems >.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It also doesnt dismiss the fact that scientists have such a bias that they throw out any estimates that dont fit their preconceived agendas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've seen this claim so many times, and never any data to back it up. You could get some if you wanted. There's a USGS lab in Menlo Park, California, that's been doing dating for decades. It's a government agency. Request their records of  lab tests, using the FOIA if necessary. Correlate those tests to publications. I've suggested this many times, but nobody's done it.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Agendas further  verified by all the the recent  brouhaha about fluctuating decay fluctuations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ain't no brouhaha. Just scientists calmly doing science, turning up possible decay variations that are six orders of magnitude too small to support your scenario.

Still waiting for some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  < Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective >, < Isochron Dating >, and < The age of the Earth > (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.

But it appears you're so afraid of reality you can't even acknowledge the existence of those links.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually you insisted that my quote:"fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays." was bull____.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And it was and is. You obviously meant the decay rate, not the production rate.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Second of all, cosmic rays can effect any radioistope and your own priests cry atmospheric contamination of all the coal and dinosaurs found with C14.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cosmic rays do not affect the decay rate of any radioisotope, and only affect the production rate of a few. The fact that any 14C found in dinosaur bones or coal is contamination is well established by evidence, not by assumption.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thirdly, your whole point here is mute do to the fact that the C14 dating depends upon the how much carbon is in the atmosphere. To say that science knows how to counter this is just more radiomagic hand waving because there is no way to calibrate carbon fluctuations that far back. Plus, atmospheric carbon ratios are not even the same everywhere .
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean mot, not mute.

Actually, there are well-known established ways to counter the effect of ?varying atmospheric 14C content. Your attempt to hand-wave that away is based on ignorance. See the figure above. And, yes, 14C content varies slightly with position, another effect that is well-understood and can be compensated for (although it's usually so small as to be unimportant).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fourthly, the whole point of Isochron dating is the use of more thane one daughter isotopes. Geologists today observe the present proportions of parent and daughter isotopes in a sample and use those proportions to date the sample but isochron dating takes it a step further by measuring more than one type of daughter isotope
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.

You haven't even attempted to show any problems with isochron dating. Or the more-widely-used U-Pb concordia-discordia dating.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Finally, not only does your Isochron dating (like with your Argon) dating suffer contamination from various sources before and during crystallization,...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is detected and indicated by the method. Oh, and "contamination before crystallization", whatever that's supposed to mean, is irrelevant.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
... but igneous rocks have unknown magma ratios of radioisotopes that can produce wide discrepancies in post crystallization ratios.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WTF is this supposed to mean and why do you think it's relevant?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sedimentary rocks, which contain most fossils are even more prone to unknown mixing, contamination, and ratios.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What percentage of radiometric dating methods are practiced on sedimentary rocks?

Still can't bring yourself to learn what's really going on, can you. Moron.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 12 2011,07:21

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,23:07)
     
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,15:54)
Wotta maroon!!

           
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38)
           
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,11:40)
             
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:09)
Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like pretty much everything you've said, that's bullshit. The T.O. article acknowledges that the production of 14C in the atmosphere is affected by changes in the cosmic ray flux, which I already mentioned (and how that is compensated for). The rate of 14C decay, the rate of Ar40 decay, and the amount of Ar40 anywhere in the Universe, or the decay rate of any radioactive isotope, is not affected by cosmic rays, and the linked T.O. article does not claim otherwise. Which facts I already pointed out.

How about some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  < Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective >, < Isochron Dating >, and < The age of the Earth > (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Cosmic Ray Flux and these quotes that you somehow missed.

“The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. ….Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. “  (Strahler, 1987, p.158)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That quote does not appear in the linked page at T.O., nor does it appear in Strahler. What does appear at T.O. is:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate,while at other times the decay rate will be the larger.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(Strahler, 1987, p.158)

Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



IOW, you can't even copy and paste. You mixed up Strahler's and Mason's words into one quote attributed to Strahler.

Here's a more complete selection from Strahler:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
One authority from mainstream science, cited by Morris in support of the greater production than decay of C-14, is Richard E. Lingenfelter (Morris, 1975, p. 164). Lingenfelter states:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On comparing the calculated value of the carbon 14 production rate, averaged over the last ten solar cycles, of 2.50 ± 0.50 C14 atoms per square centimeter per second with the most recent estimates of the decay rate of 1.8 ± 0.2 . . . and 1.9 ± 0.2 . . ., there is strong indication, despite the large errors, that the present natural production rate exceeds the natural decay rate by as much as 25 per cent. (1963, p. 51)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



(Note: Citations of sources given by Lingenfelter have been deleted from the above paragraph).

What Morris does not tell the reader is that Lingenfelter continues his discussion by attributing the discrepancy between production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a subject we have explored in earlier pages. Lingenfelter's paper was written in 1963, before the cycles of C-14 variation we described had been fully documented. The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. As curves A and C in Figure 19.5 show, before about -3000 y., C-14 was decaying faster than it was being formed, with the result that the C-14 ages are too young. The creation scientists ignore this newer information, which is readily available to the public in published journals; it was available in 1974 when the creationist textbook was published. They have made their calculations from the unsupportable assumption that the C-14 production rate has always been greater than the decay rate by the percentage observed today. That is an untenable assumption in the light of evidence to the contrary. Creationists have used the same form of unsupported extrapolation that we found in creation scientist Barnes's calculation of a limiting age of the earth by assumed constant decay rate of the earth's magnetic field.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------





And, of course, you ignored the many rrefutaions of your claims made in the T.O. article.

Wotta maroon!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And of coarse you did not reveal the link that you are accusing me of misquoting. Here it is < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......14.html >  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The link has been previously posted. And, of course, you did misquote it. You were wrong. And you're still ignoring the refutations of your claims from that article.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
..and proving yall's chronic fear mongering propaganda
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry, I assumed you could find the page easily yourself. Obviously I overestimated your capability.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Moreover your article also seems dishonest about Tree Ring chronology when considering the following quotes.

Rod A. Savidge Ph.D. says: "As a tree physiologist who has devoted his career to understanding how trees make wood, I have made sufficient observations on tree rings and cambial growth to know that dendrochronology is not at all an exact science. Indeed, its activities include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill subjective expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when they contradict other data sets that have already been accepted. Such massaging of data cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered science; it merely demonstrates a total lack of rigor attending so-called dendrochronology "research". . . It would be a major step forward if dendrochronology could embrace the scientific method." New York Times, November of 2002
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now there's a scientific and peer-reviewed reference! Let's see his evidence.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"In almost all branches of science, other than tree-ring studies, there is a check on the validity of published research: other researchers can, and often will, independently seek to replicate the research. For example, if a scientist does an experiment in a laboratory, comes to some interesting conclusion, and publishes this, then another scientist will replicate the experiment, in another laboratory, and if the conclusion is not the same, there will be some investigation. The result is (i) a scientist who publishes bogus research will be caught (at least if the research has importance and is not extremely expensive to replicate) and (ii) because all scientists know this, bogus science is rare. Tree-ring studies do not have this check, because the wood that forms the basis of a tree-ring study is irreplaceable: no other researchers can gather that wood.
Additionally, tree-ring investigators typically publish little more than conclusions. This is true everywhere, not just for Anatolia. Moreover, there is little competition among tree-ring investigators, in part”and this is crucial” because investigators in one region typically do not have access to data from other regions. The result is a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and yet are accountable to no one." "The central conclusion is clear: Anatolian tree-ring studies are very untrustworthy and the problems with the work should be plain to anyone who has familiarity with the field. This is a serious matter. Consider that the work has been published in respected research journals and been ongoing for many years. How could this have happened?" Douglas J. Keenan, Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy, The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, United Kingdom; doug.keenan@informath.org, 16 March 2004 ( < http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a....04a.pdf > ) See also: Douglas Keenan, Why Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean are too Early, Radiocarbon, Vol 44, Nr 1, 2002, p 225–237 ( < http://www.informath.org/14C02a.....02a.pdf > )
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Keenan's qualigfications have already been demolished. I'll just point that that tree-ring studies are regularly replicated correlated to other methods, e.g. U-Th disequilibrium dating of corals and lake varves.

In addition to the references you're alredy ignoring, see < How does the radiocarbon dating method work? > by a conservative Christian physicist and former staff member of the ICR (he was too honest to last long there).

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
From the "Symposium Organized By International Atomic Energy Authority", H. E. Suess, UCLA, "...presented the latest determinations... as adduced from the current activity of dendrochronologically dated growth rings of the Californian bristle cone pine....The carbon14 concentration increases rather steadily during this time… These results confirm the change in carbon14 concentration.... and indicate that the concentration increases..."  (Science, Vol.157, p.726)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ROFL! You think that a quote with so many ellipses indicates anything? But, as presented it doesn't indicate any issues with the method.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 12 2011,07:22

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,07:58)
Still can't bring yourself to learn what's really going on, can you. Moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, he doesn't give a good goddam.

It's one of those times when you say "CAN'T TELL IF TROLLING OR RETARDED" then you realize for this asshole it's both
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 12 2011,07:47

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 12 2011,07:22)
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,07:58)
Still can't bring yourself to learn what's really going on, can you. Moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, he doesn't give a good goddam.

It's one of those times when you say "CAN'T TELL IF TROLLING OR RETARDED" then you realize for this asshole it's both
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry dude, Keenan isn't good enough for here.

There is no evidence he has any training in radiometric dating of any stripe.  There is no evidence that the article you quoted has been peer-reviewed.  There is evidence that Keenan's peer-reviewed work has been debunked.

IOW: I really wouldn't pin my hopes on him.  But then, anything to support your cause right.  Just ignore the actual experts on radiometric dating (some of which are on this forum) and go with a financial services guy who has never been in a lab actually doing the work.

BTW: What, exactly, exploded to cause the Big Bang... or have you abandoned that claim?

There's the other big question. Where, is that flood discontinuity?  There are 26 locations on the Earth with full geological sequences.  It should be nearly trivial work (i.e. junior undergrad) to get all of those and find the layer that represents the flood.  I've already given you some hints on how to do it.  Go for it... or are you terrified at what you would find if you actually did the work?
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 12 2011,12:42

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:03)
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 10 2011,14:27)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,13:22)
For that population rate computation, keep in mind the number of people that had to be in Egypt at the time the pyramids were built.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Ooh, this is fun. >

Given the FLOOD was 4500 years ago and the population of the world at the height of the Egyptian empire (2030 BC) was 23,000,000ish, lets see if that gibes.

I plugged in modern day death rates (generous on my part I think).

I used a birth rate of every woman of childbearing age having 4 children in their lives.

What number do we come up with?

10,040 people.  We seem to be short a few.

Well, people had lots and lots of children then.  And let's put in a more probable set of death rates.  Let's go with:

births per childbearing woman = 8

Death rates: 1000, 6000, 3000, 7000  (Which I think is still very generous, 1% infant mortality and lots elderly still bopping about in ancient times).

We get 23ish million people.

Are these parameters correct, forastero?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lot of words but try an objective account with the formula and stats that "I" offered
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry.  What were those?  I assumed a starting population of 2.  What were you thinking?  I gave the results of 2 runs: one with current day death rates and one with a second set of death rates.  The first run used 4 children per female and the second used 8 children per female.

I asked you what the correct parameters were.  If you ere actually interested in carrying on a conversation you would have, at this point, given a set of parameters that you found to be more correct (or agreed that mine were correct).

So, how about it?  What parameters should we use?  Starting population = X
Death Rates = A, B, C, D
Birth Rate = Y

Lets do this.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,14:34

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:15)
   
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,13:28)
?  
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38)
           
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,11:40)
        ?  
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:09)
Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like pretty much everything you've said, that's bullshit. The T.O. article acknowledges that the production of 14C in the atmosphere is affected by changes in the cosmic ray flux, which I already mentioned (and how that is compensated for). The rate of 14C decay, the rate of Ar40 decay, and the amount of Ar40 anywhere in the Universe, or the decay rate of any radioactive isotope, is not affected by cosmic rays, and the linked T.O. article does not claim otherwise. Which facts I already pointed out.

How about some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  < Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective >, < Isochron Dating >, and < The age of the Earth > (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Cosmic Ray Flux and these quotes that you somehow missed.

“The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. ….Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. “  (Strahler, 1987, p.158)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup. Like I said, the rate of production of 14C varies and is compensated for, and the rate of decay does not vary. Sometimes more 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time, and sometimes less 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time. No problemo.

I have Strahler at home, I'll check those ellipses.
    ?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw, AR40 and C14 are cosmogenic radioisotopes produced by cosmic rays.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Caught by my typo! 40Ar (your capital R is incorrect) is stable, the result of the decay of 40K. 38Ar and 36Ar are indeed cosmogenic, but that is irrelevant to the age of the Earth and fossils.
    ?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw 2, you also seem to be projecting your own inabilities to put arguments in your own words? Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. It doesnt mean though those surrounding rocks were not all drenched and for millennia by the same radioisotopic contamination.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You still don't have the faintest idea of how isochron dating works. When you figure it out, from the links I gave, maybe we can have a discussion.

(In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used. And you haven't a clue from whence samples come).

It's worth noting that the vast majority of the many dates produced in the last two decades or so, including the oldest minerals and the oldest rocks found to date, came from U-Pb concordia-discordia dating. Even the creationist RATE group acknowledges that the lead found in zircons and similar samples is all a result of the decay of uranium in-situ and the only explanation that might possibly work is vastly accelerated radioactive decay:
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past (Humphreys, 2000, pp. 335–337). We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that “old??&#65533; radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth—at today’s rates—of nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(< D. R. Humphreys, S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, & A. A. Snelling, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay >). Emphasis in original.

Too bad for creationists that this AND would have subtle side effects, such as killing all life twice over from heat and radiation, and leaving the Earth's surface molten for millenia. See < RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems >.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It also doesnt dismiss the fact that scientists have such a bias that they throw out any estimates that dont fit their preconceived agendas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've seen this claim so many times, and never any data to back it up. You could get some if you wanted. There's a USGS lab in Menlo Park, California, that's been doing dating for decades. It's a government agency. Request their records of  lab tests, using the FOIA if necessary. Correlate those tests to publications. I've suggested this many times, but nobody's done it.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Agendas further  verified by all the the recent  brouhaha about fluctuating decay fluctuations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ain't no brouhaha. Just scientists calmly doing science, turning up possible decay variations that are six orders of magnitude too small to support your scenario.

Still waiting for some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  < Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective >, < Isochron Dating >, and < The age of the Earth > (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.

But it appears you're so afraid of reality you can't even acknowledge the existence of those links.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually you insisted that my quote:"fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays." was bull____.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And it was and is. You obviously meant the decay rate, not the production rate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, look up cosmogenic radioisotopes and you will see that Ar40 and C14 are produced by cosmic radiation.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Cosmic rays do not affect the decay rate of any radioisotope, and only affect the production rate of a few. The fact that any 14C found in dinosaur bones or coal is contamination is well established by evidence, not by assumption.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Look up quantum tunneling, which can be induced by cosmic rays. Plus, its common sense that if cosmic rays can produce radioisotopes, then surely they can also effect their fission decay




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You mean mot, not mute.

Actually, there are well-known established ways to counter the effect of ?varying atmospheric 14C content. Your attempt to hand-wave that away is based on ignorance. See the figure above. And, yes, 14C content varies slightly with position, another effect that is well-understood and can be compensated for (although it's usually so small as to be unimportant).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Funny that you wont mention them

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html >




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've seen this claim so many times, and never any data to back it up. You could get some if you wanted. There's a USGS lab in Menlo Park, California, that's been doing dating for decades. It's a government agency. Request their records of  lab tests, using the FOIA if necessary. Correlate those tests to publications. I've suggested this many times, but nobody's done it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half comes out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." (Robert E. Lee,  Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, no. 3, 1981, p.9)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You haven't even attempted to show any problems with isochron dating. Or the more-widely-used U-Pb concordia-discordia dating.

Which is detected and indicated by the method. Oh, and "contamination before crystallization", whatever that's supposed to mean, is irrelevant.

WTF is this supposed to mean and why do you think it's relevant?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages."  Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32;  Geological Society of America


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What percentage of radiometric dating methods are practiced on sedimentary rocks? Still can't bring yourself to learn what's really going on, can you. Moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well its not usually your so called stable alpha decaying isotopes.  Anyway though please do finally teach us why you think the radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks is so accurate.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 12 2011,14:43

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,20:56)
 

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, radioisotopes have different decay events, sensitivities, and energy barriers that require a specific activation energy that reactants must surpass in order to nudge it into decaying.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Allow me to quote what wikipedia says about alpha decay:
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alpha decay, like other cluster decays, is fundamentally a quantum tunneling process. Unlike beta decay, alpha decay is governed by the interplay between the nuclear force and the electromagnetic force.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How is the distance from the sun (10^8 of km) going to affect the strong nuclear force (range of only 10^-15 m)?  
How does it affect the coulomb repulsion between the protons of the nucleus?  
Answer: it can't.
Observation from Cassini space craft: It didn't.

{irrelevancies and other hand-waving deleted}

I have only been talking about a claimed solar effect on radioactive decay, not any other environmental effects.  The fact that you do not understand this is not my problem, but yours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------

First of all, if you had really read about strong nuclear force you wouldnt be defending his disagreement to the fact that different radioisotopes have different sensitivities and binding energies.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who the hell is "he"?  Was I not replying to you?
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y196896 >

The link to wikipedia is for you to learn from, and base an argument on.  I already know about how radioactive decay works, you do not.


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Secondly, strong nuclear and electromagnetic forces dont necessarily make an isotope the most stable. In fact, its the alpha decaying isotopes that are are usually the most unstable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The extent to which a radioactive decay rate is influenced by environment has NOTHING to to with how stable it is, dimwit.  Nor does the mechanism of alpha or beta correlate with stability.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thirdly, Quantum tunneling is actually what allows the reaction to proceed through the energy barrier and cosmic rays can induce it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Handwaving.  



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fourthly, why are you so uptight about alpha decaying radioisotopes when it seems logical that most fossils are dated with beta decaying isotopes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No answer to why alpha decay should be affected, eh?
This group seeing variation in decay rates is seeing variation in alpha and beta decay.  The fact that alpha should not be affected at all casts doubt that this is not just observational artifact for ALL the results.

That is why.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,14:51

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 12 2011,12:42)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:03)
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 10 2011,14:27)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,13:22)
For that population rate computation, keep in mind the number of people that had to be in Egypt at the time the pyramids were built.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Ooh, this is fun. >

Given the FLOOD was 4500 years ago and the population of the world at the height of the Egyptian empire (2030 BC) was 23,000,000ish, lets see if that gibes.

I plugged in modern day death rates (generous on my part I think).

I used a birth rate of every woman of childbearing age having 4 children in their lives.

What number do we come up with?

10,040 people.  We seem to be short a few.

Well, people had lots and lots of children then.  And let's put in a more probable set of death rates.  Let's go with:

births per childbearing woman = 8

Death rates: 1000, 6000, 3000, 7000  (Which I think is still very generous, 1% infant mortality and lots elderly still bopping about in ancient times).

We get 23ish million people.

Are these parameters correct, forastero?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lot of words but try an objective account with the formula and stats that "I" offered
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry.  What were those?  I assumed a starting population of 2.  What were you thinking?  I gave the results of 2 runs: one with current day death rates and one with a second set of death rates.  The first run used 4 children per female and the second used 8 children per female.

I asked you what the correct parameters were.  If you ere actually interested in carrying on a conversation you would have, at this point, given a set of parameters that you found to be more correct (or agreed that mine were correct).

So, how about it?  What parameters should we use?  Starting population = X
Death Rates = A, B, C, D
Birth Rate = Y

Lets do this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I gave the formula and two examples for you to work out. Here they are again

Do a study on compound interest in investing and you will have a better understanding of accumulative effects in both population and fluctuating decay rates. If r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n, then after n years, the population produced by the eight survivors of the Flood = 8(1+r/100)n.

For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.

On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 12 2011,15:03

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,15:34)
   
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:15)
       
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,13:28)
?        
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38)
               
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,11:40)
        ?        
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:09)
Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.

What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like pretty much everything you've said, that's bullshit. The T.O. article acknowledges that the production of 14C in the atmosphere is affected by changes in the cosmic ray flux, which I already mentioned (and how that is compensated for). The rate of 14C decay, the rate of Ar40 decay, and the amount of Ar40 anywhere in the Universe, or the decay rate of any radioactive isotope, is not affected by cosmic rays, and the linked T.O. article does not claim otherwise. Which facts I already pointed out.

How about some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  < Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective >, < Isochron Dating >, and < The age of the Earth > (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, Cosmic Ray Flux and these quotes that you somehow missed.

“The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. ….Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. “  (Strahler, 1987, p.158)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup. Like I said, the rate of production of 14C varies and is compensated for, and the rate of decay does not vary. Sometimes more 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time, and sometimes less 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time. No problemo.

I have Strahler at home, I'll check those ellipses.
    ?        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw, AR40 and C14 are cosmogenic radioisotopes produced by cosmic rays.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Caught by my typo! 40Ar (your capital R is incorrect) is stable, the result of the decay of 40K. 38Ar and 36Ar are indeed cosmogenic, but that is irrelevant to the age of the Earth and fossils.
    ?        

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw 2, you also seem to be projecting your own inabilities to put arguments in your own words? Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. It doesnt mean though those surrounding rocks were not all drenched and for millennia by the same radioisotopic contamination.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You still don't have the faintest idea of how isochron dating works. When you figure it out, from the links I gave, maybe we can have a discussion.

(In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used. And you haven't a clue from whence samples come).

It's worth noting that the vast majority of the many dates produced in the last two decades or so, including the oldest minerals and the oldest rocks found to date, came from U-Pb concordia-discordia dating. Even the creationist RATE group acknowledges that the lead found in zircons and similar samples is all a result of the decay of uranium in-situ and the only explanation that might possibly work is vastly accelerated radioactive decay:
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past (Humphreys, 2000, pp. 335–337). We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that “old??&#65533; radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth—at today’s rates—of nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(< D. R. Humphreys, S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, & A. A. Snelling, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay >). Emphasis in original.

Too bad for creationists that this AND would have subtle side effects, such as killing all life twice over from heat and radiation, and leaving the Earth's surface molten for millenia. See < RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems >.
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It also doesnt dismiss the fact that scientists have such a bias that they throw out any estimates that dont fit their preconceived agendas.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've seen this claim so many times, and never any data to back it up. You could get some if you wanted. There's a USGS lab in Menlo Park, California, that's been doing dating for decades. It's a government agency. Request their records of  lab tests, using the FOIA if necessary. Correlate those tests to publications. I've suggested this many times, but nobody's done it.
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Agendas further  verified by all the the recent  brouhaha about fluctuating decay fluctuations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ain't no brouhaha. Just scientists calmly doing science, turning up possible decay variations that are six orders of magnitude too small to support your scenario.

Still waiting for some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS?  < Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective >, < Isochron Dating >, and < The age of the Earth > (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion.

But it appears you're so afraid of reality you can't even acknowledge the existence of those links.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually you insisted that my quote:"fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays." was bull____.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And it was and is. You obviously meant the decay rate, not the production rate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, look up cosmogenic radioisotopes and you will see that Ar40 and C14 are produced by cosmic radiation.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Cosmic rays do not affect the decay rate of any radioisotope, and only affect the production rate of a few. The fact that any 14C found in dinosaur bones or coal is contamination is well established by evidence, not by assumption.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Look up quantum tunneling, which can be induced by cosmic rays.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, quantum tunneling is well understood. Cosmic rays do not affect the decay rate of any radioisotope. You're just throwing words you don't understand hoping to snow somebody.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plus, its common sense that if cosmic rays can produce radioisotopes, then surely they can also effect their fission decay
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ROFL! No, it's not common sense to anyone who has a clue about how radioactive decay works. Common sense or not, it's not how the universe works. We've made measurements.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You mean moot, not mute.

Actually, there are well-known established ways to counter the effect of ?varying atmospheric 14C content. Your attempt to hand-wave that away is based on ignorance. See the figure above. And, yes, 14C content varies slightly with position, another effect that is well-understood and can be compensated for (although it's usually so small as to be unimportant).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Funny that you wont mention them
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Be glad to ... when you've read and understood the links I gave you, and are capable of having a meaningful discussion.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup, which is exactly what I said. A "different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay" is not another daughter isotope, as you claimed. This is a technical field, you need to understand the technical terms and use them properly.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've seen this claim so many times, and never any data to back it up. You could get some if you wanted. There's a USGS lab in Menlo Park, California, that's been doing dating for decades. It's a government agency. Request their records of  lab tests, using the FOIA if necessary. Correlate those tests to publications. I've suggested this many times, but nobody's done it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half comes out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." (Robert E. Lee,  Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, no. 3, 1981, p.9)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's see his data.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You haven't even attempted to show any problems with isochron dating. Or the more-widely-used U-Pb concordia-discordia dating.

Which is detected and indicated by the method. Oh, and "contamination before crystallization", whatever that's supposed to mean, is irrelevant.

WTF is this supposed to mean and why do you think it's relevant?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



"The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages."  Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32;  Geological Society of America
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, WTF is "contamination before crystallization"?

And in the vast majority of cases where initial isotope ratios vary, you don't get an isochron.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What percentage of radiometric dating methods are practiced on sedimentary rocks? Still can't bring yourself to learn what's really going on, can you. Moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well its not usually your so called stable alpha decaying isotopes.  Anyway though please do finally teach us why you think the radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks is so accurate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. After you read my references and figure out what's going on.

Here's a hint. If sedimentary layer B is above igneous layer A which is 100 million years old and layer B is also below igneous layer C which is 90 million years old, and there's no signs of disturbance after deposition or solidification, how old is layer B?

And if igneous layer D cuts through all layers A and B, obviously by seeping into cracks and the solidifying, but doesn't cut through layer C and dates to 95 million years old, how old is layer B?
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 12 2011,15:07

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,15:51)

Do a study on compound interest in investing and you will have a better understanding of accumulative effects in both population and fluctuating decay rates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, doofus-brain, let's see the math showing exactly how changes in decay rates compound.

Free clue: changes in decay rates, if there were any, do not compound and neither do the ages derived from them. The math is pretty simple.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 12 2011,15:09

Forastero, Oh Caged Kong with the logos, you continue to have the cowardice of your convictions.  
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,23:33)
Actually, I believe its probably often much more than .05% and the perhaps weekly decay fluctuations accumulate to totally alter any reasonable measurement beyond 5000 years  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How much more than 0.5%?  

Is it your belief that sources of error such as the alleged 0.5% radiometric fluctuations (and all other alleged similar errors) are of sufficient magnitude to result in estimated ages, such as the age of the earth, that are 227,000x the actual values?

For reference, a 0.5% error in my speedometer would result in a reading of 70 mph when I was actually traveling at 70.35 mph, while you are alleging errors of magnitude such that when my indicated speed is 70 mph I may in fact be traveling over 2% of the speed of light.

Is that your belief?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 12 2011,15:23

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:51)
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 12 2011,12:42)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:03)
 
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 10 2011,14:27)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,13:22)
For that population rate computation, keep in mind the number of people that had to be in Egypt at the time the pyramids were built.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Ooh, this is fun. >

Given the FLOOD was 4500 years ago and the population of the world at the height of the Egyptian empire (2030 BC) was 23,000,000ish, lets see if that gibes.

I plugged in modern day death rates (generous on my part I think).

I used a birth rate of every woman of childbearing age having 4 children in their lives.

What number do we come up with?

10,040 people.  We seem to be short a few.

Well, people had lots and lots of children then.  And let's put in a more probable set of death rates.  Let's go with:

births per childbearing woman = 8

Death rates: 1000, 6000, 3000, 7000  (Which I think is still very generous, 1% infant mortality and lots elderly still bopping about in ancient times).

We get 23ish million people.

Are these parameters correct, forastero?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lot of words but try an objective account with the formula and stats that "I" offered
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry.  What were those?  I assumed a starting population of 2.  What were you thinking?  I gave the results of 2 runs: one with current day death rates and one with a second set of death rates.  The first run used 4 children per female and the second used 8 children per female.

I asked you what the correct parameters were.  If you ere actually interested in carrying on a conversation you would have, at this point, given a set of parameters that you found to be more correct (or agreed that mine were correct).

So, how about it?  What parameters should we use?  Starting population = X
Death Rates = A, B, C, D
Birth Rate = Y

Lets do this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I gave the formula and two examples for you to work out. Here they are again

Do a study on compound interest in investing and you will have a better understanding of accumulative effects in both population and fluctuating decay rates. If r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n, then after n years, the population produced by the eight survivors of the Flood = 8(1+r/100)n.

For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.

On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummm... you do realize that compound interest is not the same as populations of living things.  The same formulas do not work.

Here's a hint: My dollars do not die after 40-85 years.  My dollars are not eaten by leopards.  My dollars do not suffer from disentary, malaria, infant mortality and tribal warfare.

Every dollar 'reproduces' in compound interest.  Every dollar survives indefinitely.

But other than those things, they are exactly the same.

BTW: What exactly exploded in the Big Bang? And, where, in the geologic column should we expect to find Flood Sediment?

I'm really curious as to why you aren't answering major questions like these... especially since you brought up the topics in the first place.  Or are you willing to admit mistake, like I have in this very thread?

But other than that, they are exactly the same thing.
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 12 2011,15:24

Oh forastero,

So completely clueless.  So completely dishonest.  Why is it that creationists can never show their work?  My example was an actual example--you know where the work was shown and the formula was shown and the parameters were shown.

Your um...example(?) did none of that.  Let's try it again.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I gave the formula and two examples for you to work out. Here they are again
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Examples are worked out by those who give them, not the other way around.  Examples are teaching tools were the method is shown and explained.  What's the matter?  Can't you explain your own arguments?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do a study on compound interest in investing and you will have a better understanding of accumulative effects in both population and fluctuating decay rates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not interested in decay rates.  Nice of you to try to change the topic.  Now, population on the other hand?  Let's talk.
 


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n, then after n years, the population produced by the eight survivors of the Flood = 8(1+r/100)n.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Where do you derive your growth rate?  I told you where I got my numbers; is there some reason you can't tell me yours?  And, given that Noah and his sons are of different generations, shouldn't your calculation start with either 2 or 6?  Anyway, very interested in how you calculate your growth rate.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.

On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Drivel.  We can move on to examining this if you ever answer the above questions and concerns and actually work an example from scratch.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,16:37

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 12 2011,14:43)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,20:56)
 

             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually, radioisotopes have different decay events, sensitivities, and energy barriers that require a specific activation energy that reactants must surpass in order to nudge it into decaying.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Allow me to quote what wikipedia says about alpha decay:
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Alpha decay, like other cluster decays, is fundamentally a quantum tunneling process. Unlike beta decay, alpha decay is governed by the interplay between the nuclear force and the electromagnetic force.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How is the distance from the sun (10^8 of km) going to affect the strong nuclear force (range of only 10^-15 m)?  
How does it affect the coulomb repulsion between the protons of the nucleus?  
Answer: it can't.
Observation from Cassini space craft: It didn't.

{irrelevancies and other hand-waving deleted}

I have only been talking about a claimed solar effect on radioactive decay, not any other environmental effects.  The fact that you do not understand this is not my problem, but yours.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

First of all, if you had really read about strong nuclear force you wouldnt be defending his disagreement to the fact that different radioisotopes have different sensitivities and binding energies.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Who the hell is "he"?  Was I not replying to you?
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y196896 >

The link to wikipedia is for you to learn from, and base an argument on.  I already know about how radioactive decay works, you do not.


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Secondly, strong nuclear and electromagnetic forces dont necessarily make an isotope the most stable. In fact, its the alpha decaying isotopes that are are usually the most unstable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The extent to which a radioactive decay rate is influenced by environment has NOTHING to to with how stable it is, dimwit.  Nor does the mechanism of alpha or beta correlate with stability.  

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thirdly, Quantum tunneling is actually what allows the reaction to proceed through the energy barrier and cosmic rays can induce it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Handwaving.  

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fourthly, why are you so uptight about alpha decaying radioisotopes when it seems logical that most fossils are dated with beta decaying isotopes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No answer to why alpha decay should be affected, eh?
This group seeing variation in decay rates is seeing variation in alpha and beta decay.  The fact that alpha should not be affected at all casts doubt that this is not just observational artifact for ALL the results.

That is why.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Who the hell is "he"?  Was I not replying to you?
< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y196896 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Tracy, who was claiming that studies on a gold isotope proves the stability and or sensitivities of other isotopes. You claimed that my disagreement to that rationalization was handwaving



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The link to wikipedia is for you to learn from, and base an argument on.  I already know about how radioactive decay works, you do not.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The extent to which a radioactive decay rate is influenced by environment has NOTHING to to with how stable it is, dimwit.  Nor does the mechanism of alpha or beta correlate with stability.  [/quote]

You now seem to be confusing reaction and decay.  You first asked how the sun could effect the strong nuclear binding force of a alpha decaying isotope and I told you that the force doesnt necessarily make them less vulnerable to reaction. In fact, alpha radioisotopes are often the most vulnerable to reaction. On the other hand if  protons and neutrons can be rearranged inside the nucleus by deuterium tunneling and if cosmic rays and/or quantum tunneling can greatly effect reaction rates of radioisotopes and fission, its logical that it can also effect decay rates.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Handwaving.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually its called quantum physics. You and your sun god priests love fantasizing about mutationism but when someone talks logically about a mutation that can effect your scriptures, the whole congregation starts foaming at the mouth



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No answer to why alpha decay should be affected, eh?
This group seeing variation in decay rates is seeing variation in alpha and beta decay.  The fact that alpha should not be affected at all casts doubt that this is not just observational artifact for ALL the results.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Radium decays alpha, beta, and gamma and Princeton and Purdue show that the decay rates do change
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,16:50

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,15:23)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:51)
 
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 12 2011,12:42)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:03)
   
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 10 2011,14:27)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,13:22)
For that population rate computation, keep in mind the number of people that had to be in Egypt at the time the pyramids were built.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Ooh, this is fun. >

Given the FLOOD was 4500 years ago and the population of the world at the height of the Egyptian empire (2030 BC) was 23,000,000ish, lets see if that gibes.

I plugged in modern day death rates (generous on my part I think).

I used a birth rate of every woman of childbearing age having 4 children in their lives.

What number do we come up with?

10,040 people.  We seem to be short a few.

Well, people had lots and lots of children then.  And let's put in a more probable set of death rates.  Let's go with:

births per childbearing woman = 8

Death rates: 1000, 6000, 3000, 7000  (Which I think is still very generous, 1% infant mortality and lots elderly still bopping about in ancient times).

We get 23ish million people.

Are these parameters correct, forastero?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lot of words but try an objective account with the formula and stats that "I" offered
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry.  What were those?  I assumed a starting population of 2.  What were you thinking?  I gave the results of 2 runs: one with current day death rates and one with a second set of death rates.  The first run used 4 children per female and the second used 8 children per female.

I asked you what the correct parameters were.  If you ere actually interested in carrying on a conversation you would have, at this point, given a set of parameters that you found to be more correct (or agreed that mine were correct).

So, how about it?  What parameters should we use?  Starting population = X
Death Rates = A, B, C, D
Birth Rate = Y

Lets do this.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I gave the formula and two examples for you to work out. Here they are again

Do a study on compound interest in investing and you will have a better understanding of accumulative effects in both population and fluctuating decay rates. If r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n, then after n years, the population produced by the eight survivors of the Flood = 8(1+r/100)n.

For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.

On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ummm... you do realize that compound interest is not the same as populations of living things.  The same formulas do not work.

Here's a hint: My dollars do not die after 40-85 years.  My dollars are not eaten by leopards.  My dollars do not suffer from disentary, malaria, infant mortality and tribal warfare.

Every dollar 'reproduces' in compound interest.  Every dollar survives indefinitely.

But other than those things, they are exactly the same.

BTW: What exactly exploded in the Big Bang? And, where, in the geologic column should we expect to find Flood Sediment?

I'm really curious as to why you aren't answering major questions like these... especially since you brought up the topics in the first place.  Or are you willing to admit mistake, like I have in this very thread?

But other than that, they are exactly the same thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not only did you willfully misinterpret the analogy but you fail to realize that the average dollar bill has a life span of only about 18-22 months

Likewise, no one knows what formula you are talking about and the age old formula that I provided wont get you to that answer unless you messed up big time
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,17:07

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 12 2011,15:24)
Oh forastero,

So completely clueless.  So completely dishonest.  Why is it that creationists can never show their work?  My example was an actual example--you know where the work was shown and the formula was shown and the parameters were shown.

Your um...example(?) did none of that.  Let's try it again.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I gave the formula and two examples for you to work out. Here they are again
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Examples are worked out by those who give them, not the other way around.  Examples are teaching tools were the method is shown and explained.  What's the matter?  Can't you explain your own arguments?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do a study on compound interest in investing and you will have a better understanding of accumulative effects in both population and fluctuating decay rates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not interested in decay rates.  Nice of you to try to change the topic.  Now, population on the other hand?  Let's talk.
 


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n, then after n years, the population produced by the eight survivors of the Flood = 8(1+r/100)n.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Where do you derive your growth rate?  I told you where I got my numbers; is there some reason you can't tell me yours?  And, given that Noah and his sons are of different generations, shouldn't your calculation start with either 2 or 6?  Anyway, very interested in how you calculate your growth rate.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.

On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Drivel.  We can move on to examining this if you ever answer the above questions and concerns and actually work an example from scratch.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My gosh. Im giving you the formula and  very conservative growth rates. The first example adds up to the present  population of the earth

The second evolutionism one adds up to way to many especially if you consider erectus (logically fully human) is supposed to actually be here two years, I said one million years ago to represent H. antecessor

What more do you need?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 12 2011,17:10

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,17:07)
My gosh. Im giving you the formula and  very conservative growth rates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, you mean this?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If that's a "formula" please tell me what the population figures were, say, 2500 years ago.

1000 years ago?

500?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,17:19

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,13:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh but thats right, you still think erectus heidelbergensis, antecessor, Neanderthal, etc.. were all apes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course they were apes. So are we.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah so thats how they finally solved the missing link. How convenient and please tell me why we and the apes are so different from head to toe?
Posted by: noncarborundum on Nov. 12 2011,17:32

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)
You mean mot, not mute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Or possibly "moot".

   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:34)

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The reading comprehension is not strong in this one, is it?  Either that, or the ability to look up "radioisotope" in any convenient dictionary and understand the result.
Posted by: paragwinn on Nov. 12 2011,17:46

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:50)
Not only did you willfully misinterpret the analogy but you fail to realize that the average dollar bill has a life span of only about 18-22 months

Likewise, no one knows what formula you are talking about and the age old formula that I provided wont get you to that answer unless you messed up big time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


forastero must be Robert Byers'  "smarter" brother.

forastero,
You provided a formula in this format: 8(1+r/100)n
where, in your words, "r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n".
maybe there's a formatting problem here but the formula could be interpreted like this: 8 x (1+R/100) x n.
Did you mean this: 8 x [(1+r/100) exponent n]?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,18:04

Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 12 2011,17:32)
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)
You mean mot, not mute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Or possibly "moot".

   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:34)

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The reading comprehension is not strong in this one, is it?  Either that, or the ability to look up "radioisotope" in any convenient dictionary and understand the result.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thats three radioisotopes in that quote. A parent isotope can decay to different daughter or even granddaughter isotopes

To make it easy on you look at these isochron parent to daughter isotope dating techniques. I-Xe, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,18:07

Quote (paragwinn @ Nov. 12 2011,17:46)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:50)
Not only did you willfully misinterpret the analogy but you fail to realize that the average dollar bill has a life span of only about 18-22 months

Likewise, no one knows what formula you are talking about and the age old formula that I provided wont get you to that answer unless you messed up big time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


forastero must be Robert Byers'  "smarter" brother.

forastero,
You provided a formula in this format: 8(1+r/100)n
where, in your words, "r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n".
maybe there's a formatting problem here but the formula could be interpreted like this: 8 x (1+R/100) x n.
Did you mean this: 8 x [(1+r/100) exponent n]?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah sorry my exponents aren't coming out where they should
Posted by: Wolfhound on Nov. 12 2011,18:09

I'm sorry, but the fact that this clown (my apologies to Blipey) believes (or at least claims to believe, for the sake of trolling) in Teh Flud tells us all that we need to know about his stupidity and credulity.  

Of course, chew toys ARE fun, so dance, little I-Didn't-Come-From-No-Monkey, DANCE!

TARD.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,18:13

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2011,17:10)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,17:07)
My gosh. Im giving you the formula and  very conservative growth rates.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, you mean this?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If that's a "formula" please tell me what the population figures were, say, 2500 years ago.

1000 years ago?

500?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here I will make it easy  but mind you that this calculator only shows  exponential growth.
< http://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias....ion.php >

....and whata ya know, it even provides our compound interest analogy
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 12 2011,18:13

So, forastero, are you saying that every 18-24 months, all the money that was in my investment account at the beginning of that time span is GONE?  And, that after 18-24 months, the only thing left in my investment account is the compound interest on the money that accumulated in those 18-24 months?

Because, that is what you are saying and the sheer stupidity of that statement is truly staggering.

Dollars =/= dollar bills.  

I don't know how to say this any easier... YOU CANNOT USE SIMPLE COMPOUND INTEREST FOR POPULATIONS OF ORGANISMS.

I'm sure that was an attempt to bolster your use of Keenan, but it was an utter failure.

Now, we see that you know nothing about money and biology and physics and likely chemistry and definitely geology.

Now, I still have two outstanding questions and I will continue to point out that you are too chicken to answer them until either A) you do answer them or B) admit that your position was wrong on them.  You are too intellectually chicken to admit you were wrong, so your only choice to not look like a complete wimp is to answer the questions.

1) What, exactly, exploded to cause the big bang.  

2) And, where, in the geologic column should we expect to find Flood Sediment?

Just admit that your position on these two topics is totally wrong and you will have generated some small measure of respectability.  Continue to not answer and we will continue to point others to this thread as further evidence of the complete inability of creationists to answer even simple questions about their own position.

Do you know, forastero, how people become famous in science?  I promise you it is not through constantly attacking others' positions.  It is only through positive evidence that supports your own position.

Your position is not that science is wrong.  Your position is that of a literal Bible and Young Earth Creationism.  This battle has been fought for longer than either of us has been alive and at no point in the entire history of the YEC movement has a single bit (in the literal definition) of positive, supporting evidence for the YEC position ever been presented.

You know how we know there is none.  Because if there was some, you people would never shut up about it.  That evidence would be blasted on the Christian radio networks 32 hours every day.  The simple fact that you are too chicken to even state your position, much less support it, is proof of the utter vacuousness of your notions about the Earth, the Universe and everything.

In some 27 pages, you have not only failed to make a positive case for your position, you have failed to make a single argument that disputes any known science, and you have completely failed to both learn and understand what you are arguing about.

Keep flailing, it's funny.  But never think for a moment that you are even playing the same game that scientists are.

You have two questions to answer... I predict that you much, much too chicken to even acknowledge they exist, much less answer them.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 12 2011,18:15

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,18:07)
Yeah sorry my exponents aren't coming out where they should
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, what does it matter. You believe the earth is younger then the age of some of the living things on it.

< List_of_long-living_organisms >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pando is a Populus tremuloides (Quaking Aspen) tree or clonal colony that has been estimated at 80,000 years old,although some claims place it as being as old as one million years. Unlike many other clonal "colonies" the above ground trunks remain connected to each other via a single massive underground root system. Whether it is to be considered a single tree is disputed, as it depends on one's definition of an individual tree.
The Jurupa Oak colony is estimated to be at least 13,000 years of age, with other estimates ranging from 5,000 to 30,000 years.
A huge colony of the sea grass Posidonia oceanica in the Mediterranean Sea could be up to 100,000 years old.
King's Lomatia in Tasmania: The sole surviving clonal colony of this species is estimated to be at least 43,600 years old.
A box huckleberry bush in Pennsylvania is thought to be as old as 13,000 years of age.
Eucalyptus recurva: clones in Australia are claimed to be 13,000 years old.
Quercus palmeri: a clonal oak shrub near Riverside in California, isolated for centuries from the rest of its species, is dated at around 13,000 years old.
King Clone is a creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) in the Mojave desert estimated at 11,700 years old. Another creosote bush has been said to be 12,150 years old, but this is as yet unconfirmed.
A Huon Pine colony on Mount Read, Tasmania is estimated at 10,000 years old, with individual specimens living to over 3,000 years.
A colony of Norway Spruce in Sweden, nicknamed Old Tjikko, includes remnants of roots that have been carbon dated to 9,550 years old.
An individual of the fungus species Armillaria solidipes in the Malheur National Forest is thought to be between 2,000 and 8,500 years old. It is thought to be the world's largest organism by area, at 2,384 acres (965 hectares).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So what's some, or even all exponents in such crazyness?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 12 2011,18:25

Hey forastero, here's a reply, also published in Radiocarbon to your Keenan article.

< http://dendro.cornell.edu/article....02c.pdf >

I'll just add that Manning et. al. has another (minimum) 15 peer-reviewed articles published specifically discussing radiocarbon dating AFTER 2002.  Further, if you go to Manning's home page, there are at least three articles discussing radiocarbon calibration, at least two discussing the tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating, and one article discussing what we know and don't know about radiocarbon dates.  Most of these were also published in Radiocarbon.

Feel free to read them all and learn what's going on from an actual scientist, but do start with the response to Keenan's paper.

Enjoy.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,18:25

Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 12 2011,18:09)
I'm sorry, but the fact that this clown (my apologies to Blipey) believes (or at least claims to believe, for the sake of trolling) in Teh Flud tells us all that we need to know about his stupidity and credulity.  

Of course, chew toys ARE fun, so dance, little I-Didn't-Come-From-No-Monkey, DANCE!

TARD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey it was those unromantically rude dudes who  doubted Troy, Babylon, Atlantis, Nineveh, and Nimrud too
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 12 2011,18:35

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 12 2011,18:09)
I'm sorry, but the fact that this clown (my apologies to Blipey) believes (or at least claims to believe, for the sake of trolling) in Teh Flud tells us all that we need to know about his stupidity and credulity.  

Of course, chew toys ARE fun, so dance, little I-Didn't-Come-From-No-Monkey, DANCE!

TARD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey it was those unromantically rude dudes who  doubted Troy, Babylon, Atlantis, Nineveh, and Nimrud too
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Read more: < http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes....XcRY5Rg >
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 12 2011,18:45

forastero:

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?

It is a necessary entailment of other beliefs you have already stated, such as your belief that the earth is probably less than 20,000 years old.

Why, then, are you afraid to simply state it, Oh Caged Kong?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,18:49

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2011,18:15)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,18:07)
Yeah sorry my exponents aren't coming out where they should
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey, what does it matter. You believe the earth is younger then the age of some of the living things on it.

< List_of_long-living_organisms >

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Pando is a Populus tremuloides (Quaking Aspen) tree or clonal colony that has been estimated at 80,000 years old,although some claims place it as being as old as one million years. Unlike many other clonal "colonies" the above ground trunks remain connected to each other via a single massive underground root system. Whether it is to be considered a single tree is disputed, as it depends on one's definition of an individual tree.
The Jurupa Oak colony is estimated to be at least 13,000 years of age, with other estimates ranging from 5,000 to 30,000 years.
A huge colony of the sea grass Posidonia oceanica in the Mediterranean Sea could be up to 100,000 years old.
King's Lomatia in Tasmania: The sole surviving clonal colony of this species is estimated to be at least 43,600 years old.
A box huckleberry bush in Pennsylvania is thought to be as old as 13,000 years of age.
Eucalyptus recurva: clones in Australia are claimed to be 13,000 years old.
Quercus palmeri: a clonal oak shrub near Riverside in California, isolated for centuries from the rest of its species, is dated at around 13,000 years old.
King Clone is a creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) in the Mojave desert estimated at 11,700 years old. Another creosote bush has been said to be 12,150 years old, but this is as yet unconfirmed.
A Huon Pine colony on Mount Read, Tasmania is estimated at 10,000 years old, with individual specimens living to over 3,000 years.
A colony of Norway Spruce in Sweden, nicknamed Old Tjikko, includes remnants of roots that have been carbon dated to 9,550 years old.
An individual of the fungus species Armillaria solidipes in the Malheur National Forest is thought to be between 2,000 and 8,500 years old. It is thought to be the world's largest organism by area, at 2,384 acres (965 hectares).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So what's some, or even all exponents in such crazyness?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey you like timeshares? Well how about one with millions of years old spores and thousands of years old grass and bacteria on some real Florida swampland???
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,19:01

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,18:45)
forastero:

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?

It is a necessary entailment of other beliefs you have already stated, such as your belief that the earth is probably less than 20,000 years old.

Why, then, are you afraid to simply state it, Oh Caged Kong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


227,000X older? Now thats some quantum physics I aint been seeing to often. Seems to me that any disruption of the decay process is only going to amount to higher radioactive ratios that might make things appear older than they really are
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 12 2011,19:14

2 major questions and a refutation of your go to guy.  Get on it.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 12 2011,19:17

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,20:01)
227,000X older? Now thats some quantum physics I aint been seeing to often. Seems to me that any disruption of the decay process is only going to amount to higher radioactive ratios that might make things appear older than they really are
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


227,000x follows directly from your own statements.

Specifically, while the current consensus, largely from radiometric dating, is that the earth is 4.54 billion years old, your stated belief is that the earth is probably less than 20,000 years old.

4.54 billion/20,000 = 227,000. Radiometric dating techniques establish an age for the earth that is 227,000x your wishful guess of 20,000 years.

Is it your belief that sources of error such as the alleged 0.5% radiometric fluctuations (and all other alleged similar errors), however they are "accumulative," 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?

It is a necessary entailment of other beliefs you have already stated, such as your belief that the earth is probably less than 20,000 years old.

Why, then, are you afraid to simply state it, Oh Caged Kong?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,19:17

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:35)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 12 2011,18:09)
I'm sorry, but the fact that this clown (my apologies to Blipey) believes (or at least claims to believe, for the sake of trolling) in Teh Flud tells us all that we need to know about his stupidity and credulity.  

Of course, chew toys ARE fun, so dance, little I-Didn't-Come-From-No-Monkey, DANCE!

TARD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey it was those unromantically rude dudes who  doubted Troy, Babylon, Atlantis, Nineveh, and Nimrud too
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Read more: < http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes.....XcRY5Rg >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Naa those dudes that laughed Columbus and Orval were to old and cold to laugh at ol bozo
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,19:21

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,19:17)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,20:01)
227,000X older? Now thats some quantum physics I aint been seeing to often. Seems to me that any disruption of the decay process is only going to amount to higher radioactive ratios that might make things appear older than they really are
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


227,000x follows directly from your own statements.

Specifically, while the current consensus, largely from radiometric dating, is that the earth is 4.54 billion years old, your stated belief is that the earth is probably less than 20,000 years old.

4.54 billion/20,000 = 227,000. Radiometric dating techniques establish an age for the earth that is 227,000x your wishful guess of 20,000 years.

Is it your belief that sources of error such as the alleged 0.5% radiometric fluctuations (and all other alleged similar errors), however they are "accumulative," 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?

It is a necessary entailment of other beliefs you have already stated, such as your belief that the earth is probably less than 20,000 years old.

Why, then, are you afraid to simply state it, Oh Caged Kong?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Right, it should make it appear older imo
Posted by: Cubist on Nov. 12 2011,19:21

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey it was those unromantically rude dudes who  doubted Troy, Babylon, Atlantis, Nineveh, and Nimrud too
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


forastero, there's an Abbott & Costello routine that's very appropriate here...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Costello: They said Newton was crazy! They said Einstein was crazy! They said Luigi was crazy!
Abbott: Hold on a second. Who's Luigi?
Costello: Oh, Luigi's my uncle. He is crazy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You YECs are crazy like Luigi, not crazy like Einstein.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 12 2011,19:32

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,20:21)
Right, it should make it appear older imo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pay attention forastero.

I'm not asking whether it is your belief that errors in dating techniques result in ages older than you believe to be the case. We already know that.  

I am asking if it is your belief that "accumulative" errors alleged in your cites are sufficient to result in ages that are not merely older, but 227,000 times older.

Is that your belief?

ETA: replace 'documented' with 'alleged'
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 12 2011,19:46

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:17)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:35)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 12 2011,18:09)
I'm sorry, but the fact that this clown (my apologies to Blipey) believes (or at least claims to believe, for the sake of trolling) in Teh Flud tells us all that we need to know about his stupidity and credulity.  

Of course, chew toys ARE fun, so dance, little I-Didn't-Come-From-No-Monkey, DANCE!

TARD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey it was those unromantically rude dudes who  doubted Troy, Babylon, Atlantis, Nineveh, and Nimrud too
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Read more: < http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes.....XcRY5Rg >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Naa those dudes that laughed Columbus and Orval were to old and cold to laugh at ol bozo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have time to comment on completely useless posts, but you don't have the time or energy to answer 2 questions... one of which has been outstanding for at least two weeks.

I guess we can see where you stand.  Say hi to Bozo for me.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,19:47

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey forastero, here's a reply, also published in Radiocarbon to your Keenan article.

< http://dendro.cornell.edu/article....02c.pdf >

I'll just add that Manning et. al. has another (minimum) 15 peer-reviewed articles published specifically discussing radiocarbon dating AFTER 2002.  Further, if you go to Manning's home page, there are at least three articles discussing radiocarbon calibration, at least two discussing the tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating, and one article discussing what we know and don't know about radiocarbon dates.  Most of these were also published in Radiocarbon.

Feel free to read them all and learn what's going on from an actual scientist, but do start with the response to Keenan's paper.

Enjoy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There be skullduggery goings on with yur pirates
< http://www.centuries.co.uk/uluburu....run.pdf > c14
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 12 2011,20:00

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey forastero, here's a reply, also published in Radiocarbon to your Keenan article.

< http://dendro.cornell.edu/article....02c.pdf >

I'll just add that Manning et. al. has another (minimum) 15 peer-reviewed articles published specifically discussing radiocarbon dating AFTER 2002.  Further, if you go to Manning's home page, there are at least three articles discussing radiocarbon calibration, at least two discussing the tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating, and one article discussing what we know and don't know about radiocarbon dates.  Most of these were also published in Radiocarbon.

Feel free to read them all and learn what's going on from an actual scientist, but do start with the response to Keenan's paper.

Enjoy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There be skullduggery goings on with yur pirates
< http://www.centuries.co.uk/uluburu....run.pdf > c14
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry, I must have missed it.  Where was this peer-reviewed again?

I mean seriously, citing a draft manuscript.  

While you seem to be talking to me again, why don't you tell me what exploded to cause the Big Bang and where in the geologic column I can expect to find strata representing the world wide flood.  

I assure you, it will be extraordinarily easy to check if the formation you say really is world-wide and really is a flood deposit.

See positive evidence.  That's all you need is positive evidence to support your position.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 12 2011,20:06

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,20:32)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,20:21)
Right, it should make it appear older imo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pay attention forastero.

I'm not asking whether it is your belief that errors in dating techniques result in ages older than you believe to be the case. We already know that.  

I am asking if it is your belief that "accumulative" errors alleged in your cites are sufficient to result in ages that are not merely older, but 227,000 times older.

Is that your belief?


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hurrrrrrrrrrrrrp durp durp durp
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,20:19

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,19:32)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,20:21)
Right, it should make it appear older imo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pay attention forastero.

I'm not asking whether it is your belief that errors in dating techniques result in ages older than you believe to be the case. We already know that.  

I am asking if it is your belief that "accumulative" errors alleged in your cites are sufficient to result in ages that are not merely older, but 227,000 times older.

Is that your belief?

ETA: replace 'documented' with 'alleged'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, the fluctuations, assumptions, circular calibrations, contaminations, religious fervor, etc etc etc make your radiomagic dating a joke

 
Btw 2, its ironic that this new age radioactive religion  is used to make up chronologies that attempt dismiss certain biblical chronologies, is believed to be the source of a mutationism to in an attempt to replace Creationism, is based on particles named after the demons (ancient god-kings) who killed off God's Creation, is used to make weapons that can destroy whats left of Creation?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,20:24

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,20:00)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey forastero, here's a reply, also published in Radiocarbon to your Keenan article.

< http://dendro.cornell.edu/article....02c.pdf >

I'll just add that Manning et. al. has another (minimum) 15 peer-reviewed articles published specifically discussing radiocarbon dating AFTER 2002.  Further, if you go to Manning's home page, there are at least three articles discussing radiocarbon calibration, at least two discussing the tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating, and one article discussing what we know and don't know about radiocarbon dates.  Most of these were also published in Radiocarbon.

Feel free to read them all and learn what's going on from an actual scientist, but do start with the response to Keenan's paper.

Enjoy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There be skullduggery goings on with yur pirates
< http://www.centuries.co.uk/uluburu....run.pdf > c14
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm sorry, I must have missed it.  Where was this peer-reviewed again?

I mean seriously, citing a draft manuscript.  

While you seem to be talking to me again, why don't you tell me what exploded to cause the Big Bang and where in the geologic column I can expect to find strata representing the world wide flood.  

I assure you, it will be extraordinarily easy to check if the formation you say really is world-wide and really is a flood deposit.

See positive evidence.  That's all you need is positive evidence to support your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


..and your priestly peer reviews is the perfect case in point concerning your supremacist scientific inquisition.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,20:27

Btw 2&3 No one can explain the Big bang explosion and you havnt mentioned even one geologic column
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 12 2011,20:28

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,21:19)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,19:32)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,20:21)
Right, it should make it appear older imo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, the fluctuations, assumptions, circular calibrations, contaminations, religious fervor, etc etc etc make your radiomagic dating a joke.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not asking whether it is your belief that radiometric dating is a joke, or whether you otherwise disdain that and other techniques that indicate an earth that is vastly older than your wishful fiction.

I am asking if it is your belief that the errors alleged in your cites are sufficient to result in ages that are not merely older, but 227,000 times older.

Is that your belief??

While you are at it, give us a clue regarding why you are reluctant to respond, Forastero the Kong (FTK?)
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,20:44

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,20:28)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,21:19)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,19:32)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,20:21)
Right, it should make it appear older imo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, the fluctuations, assumptions, circular calibrations, contaminations, religious fervor, etc etc etc make your radiomagic dating a joke.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not asking whether it is your belief that radiometric dating is a joke, or whether you otherwise disdain that and other techniques that indicate an earth that as vastly older than your wishful fiction.

I am asking if it is your belief that the errors alleged in your cites are sufficient to result in ages that are not merely older, but 227,000 times older.

Is that your belief??

While you are at it, give us a clue regarding why you are reluctant to respond, Forastero the Kong (FTK?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off.

Btw, being obtuse is just another hand waving excuse to not put up your intellectual dukes
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,20:47

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,20:00)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey forastero, here's a reply, also published in Radiocarbon to your Keenan article.

< http://dendro.cornell.edu/article....02c.pdf >

I'll just add that Manning et. al. has another (minimum) 15 peer-reviewed articles published specifically discussing radiocarbon dating AFTER 2002.  Further, if you go to Manning's home page, there are at least three articles discussing radiocarbon calibration, at least two discussing the tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating, and one article discussing what we know and don't know about radiocarbon dates.  Most of these were also published in Radiocarbon.

Feel free to read them all and learn what's going on from an actual scientist, but do start with the response to Keenan's paper.

Enjoy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There be skullduggery goings on with yur pirates
< http://www.centuries.co.uk/uluburu....run.pdf > c14
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

While you seem to be talking to me again, why don't you tell me what exploded to cause the Big Bang and where in the geologic column I can expect to find strata representing the world wide flood.  

I assure you, it will be extraordinarily easy to check if the formation you say really is world-wide and really is a flood deposit.

See positive evidence.  That's all you need is positive evidence to support your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No one can explain the Big bang explosion and you havnt mentioned even one geologic column
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 12 2011,20:53

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,21:44)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,20:28)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,21:19)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,19:32)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,20:21)
Right, it should make it appear older imo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, the fluctuations, assumptions, circular calibrations, contaminations, religious fervor, etc etc etc make your radiomagic dating a joke.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not asking whether it is your belief that radiometric dating is a joke, or whether you otherwise disdain that and other techniques that indicate an earth that as vastly older than your wishful fiction.

I am asking if it is your belief that the errors alleged in your cites are sufficient to result in ages that are not merely older, but 227,000 times older.

Is that your belief??

While you are at it, give us a clue regarding why you are reluctant to respond, Forastero the Kong (FTK?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off.

Btw, being obtuse is just another hand waving excuse to not put up your intellectual dukes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


what's the other "part"?  sin?

LOL you are one of the dumbest people on the internet

and you are one of the hugest pussies that has ever spewed creationist bullshit on this board.  

absolutely scared of RB!  this question aint going away sugar, you have cashed out on your idiotic creationist objections to shit you don't understand about this.

time to admit that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  then, if i may add a suggestion, if I were you I would go swallow a bottle of sleeping pills and dream about quantum tunneling.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 12 2011,21:03

Wow the word salad really comes out when they lose the argument doesn't it.

"Again, the fluctuations, assumptions, circular calibrations, contaminations, religious fervor, etc etc etc make your radiomagic dating a joke."

He has stated this and except for a 0.5% possible issue with fluctuations he has failed to show any other issues with dating.


"Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off"

So why the feck lead with the issue that only results in a 0.5% error. This is like the Mt St Helens thing - He has these magical super-secret proofs, but he trots out the tired old creationist carnards.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 12 2011,21:07

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 12 2011,21:03)
Wow the word salad really comes out when they lose the argument doesn't it.

"Again, the fluctuations, assumptions, circular calibrations, contaminations, religious fervor, etc etc etc make your radiomagic dating a joke."

He has stated this and except for a 0.5% possible issue with fluctuations he has failed to show any other issues with dating.


"Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off"

So why the feck lead with the issue that only results in a 0.5% error. This is like the Mt St Helens thing - He has these magical super-secret proofs, but he trots out the tired old creationist carnards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually I already went over that stuff but y'all only want to discuss this new finding on fluctuating decay rates
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 12 2011,21:41

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,21:44)
Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


("Again?" LOL!)

So, it is NOT your belief that "accumulative" errors in radiometric dating techniques are sufficient to account for a finding for the age of the earth that is 227,000x that of your wishful fiction.

Stated another way, you concede that, even given worst case inaccuracy, the radiometric evidence continues to indicate that the earth is significantly older than your wishful fiction of 20,000 years.

You don't credit that evidence "because its only a 'part' of the reason that your dating is way off." But stay with the radiometric data another moment.

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 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?

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?  

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%.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw, being obtuse is just another hand waving excuse to not put up your intellectual dukes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I posed this question nine times over two solid days before you muttered your response. Enough said.

ETA: a more accurate quote.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 12 2011,21:45

BTW, I allowed the alleged 0.5% radiometric fluctuations "and all other alleged similar errors."
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 12 2011,21:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,13:18)



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Oh but thats right, you still think erectus heidelbergensis, antecessor, Neanderthal, etc.. were all apes

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course they were apes. So are we.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah so thats how they finally solved the missing link. How convenient and please tell me why we and the apes are so different from head to toe?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Every species of ape is different from every other species of ape. That's why they're labeled as different species. They're different because each one evolved independently of the others, and they diverged.

Henry
Posted by: noncarborundum on Nov. 12 2011,21:53

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,18:04)
     
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 12 2011,17:32)
       
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)
You mean mot, not mute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Or possibly "moot".

           
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:34)

                 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The reading comprehension is not strong in this one, is it?  Either that, or the ability to look up "radioisotope" in any convenient dictionary and understand the result.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thats three radioisotopes in that quote. A parent isotope can decay to different daughter or even granddaughter isotopes

To make it easy on you look at these isochron parent to daughter isotope dating techniques. I-Xe, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do me a favor.  Look up "radioisotope" and then we'll talk.  Even easier, < just > < follow > < any > < one > < of > < these > < links >.  A further helpful hint: you may want to consider that Potassium-Argon dating involves the daughter isotope < Argon-40 >, which is not radioactive.

ETA:  Jeez.  Even after I suggested looking in a dictionary.  Are you actually testing Poe's law?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 12 2011,22:28

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,20:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,20:00)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:47)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey forastero, here's a reply, also published in Radiocarbon to your Keenan article.

< http://dendro.cornell.edu/article....02c.pdf >

I'll just add that Manning et. al. has another (minimum) 15 peer-reviewed articles published specifically discussing radiocarbon dating AFTER 2002.  Further, if you go to Manning's home page, there are at least three articles discussing radiocarbon calibration, at least two discussing the tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating, and one article discussing what we know and don't know about radiocarbon dates.  Most of these were also published in Radiocarbon.

Feel free to read them all and learn what's going on from an actual scientist, but do start with the response to Keenan's paper.

Enjoy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There be skullduggery goings on with yur pirates
< http://www.centuries.co.uk/uluburu....run.pdf > c14
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

While you seem to be talking to me again, why don't you tell me what exploded to cause the Big Bang and where in the geologic column I can expect to find strata representing the world wide flood.  

I assure you, it will be extraordinarily easy to check if the formation you say really is world-wide and really is a flood deposit.

See positive evidence.  That's all you need is positive evidence to support your position.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No one can explain the Big bang explosion and you havnt mentioned even one geologic column
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you SAID forastero


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now concerning your insistence that the Big Bang explosion was a metaphor, it seems few scientists agree with you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





---------------------QUOTE-------------------
-I used nuclear explosion as just one of the ways some scientists explain the big bang but why on earth do you deny that nucleosynthesis explosions? Do you also deny nucleosynthesis from supernova explosions?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your claim is that scientists used the Big Bang not as a metaphor.  So I want you to tell me, since you know so much about the early universe... what exploded to cause the explosion that created the universe.  It's your claim, you defend it.

My claim is that the Big Bang is a metaphor for the rapid expansion of the universe from a singularity.  That is the currently favored hypothesis in all cosmologist circles.  You are claiming that this is not correct, so where is your evidence.

Or do you now freely admit that you don't have a clue what you are talking about?

As far as Geology, no one has mentioned geologic columns... however it is a consequence of a world wide flood.  I'll assume you accept the Flood story of the Judeo-Christian Bible, feel free to correct me (doing so will deny your God of course, but feel free to deny).

One of the consequences of having flooded the planet with some 4.5 billion cubic kilometers of water, washing across the surface of the planet in 40 days... you will have MAJOR erosion.  We're talking erosion fit to make Krakatoa look like an old guy with a pair of tweezers.

There MUST be a major discontinuity that covers the entire planet, somewhere in the Geologic record.

Further, all that sediment must land someplace.  In less than a year, all that water went away and all the sediment must have gone somewhere.  Even the highest peaks would have had a little bit of sediment.  Major land basins (like the central American Plains for example) would have had quite a bit of sediment dumped on them.  This is simple hydrodynamics.

So, where is it?  Somewhere in the Geologic column, there must be a world wide layer of sedimentary material.  There are 26 locations on Earth (I gave you a hint of one of them) where we can look and see a complete geologic record from the Precambrian to present.  So, where should we look?

It should be easy for someone of your learning to get these locations, examine the rock layers and tell us which one it is.

BTW: We know that we can indeed find layers of rock that show world-wide events.  And we can find that layer all over the world in rocks of the appropriate age.  

This is that positive evidence for your claims that we're talking about.  You can obfuscate all you like, but until you actually present positive supporting evidence for your claims, then your just babbling.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 12 2011,23:01

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,22:41)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,21:44)
Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


("Again?" LOL!)

So, it is NOT your belief that "accumulative" errors in radiometric dating techniques are sufficient to account for a finding for the age of the earth that is 227,000x that of your wishful fiction.

Stated another way, you concede that, even given worst case inaccuracy, the radiometric evidence continues to indicate that the earth is significantly older than your wishful fiction of 20,000 years.

You don't credit that evidence "because its only a 'part' of the reason that your dating is way off." But stay with the radiometric data another moment.

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 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?

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?  

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%.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw, being obtuse is just another hand waving excuse to not put up your intellectual dukes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I posed this question nine times over two solid days before you muttered your response. Enough said.

ETA: a more accurate quote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 12 2011,23:02

fourass, this the part where you claim victory, flounce out, don't come back for a few days, return with a tardgasm of many posts to ogre starting the same old bullshit shucking and jiving you are diong here, acting like you never heard of any of this
Posted by: Wolfhound on Nov. 12 2011,23:09

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:25)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 12 2011,18:09)
I'm sorry, but the fact that this clown (my apologies to Blipey) believes (or at least claims to believe, for the sake of trolling) in Teh Flud tells us all that we need to know about his stupidity and credulity.  

Of course, chew toys ARE fun, so dance, little I-Didn't-Come-From-No-Monkey, DANCE!

TARD.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey it was those unromantically rude dudes who  doubted Troy, Babylon, Atlantis, Nineveh, and Nimrud too
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!  Atheistoclast, is that you?  :D
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 12 2011,23:19

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,16:37)
 

You now seem to be confusing reaction and decay.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Er, what reaction exactly?  There is none proposed for what those papers claim except stuff they made up to explain something which probably does not exist.

You also mentioned stability which has bupkis to do with decay modes.

U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, alpha decay.
Rn-212, 24 min, alpha
Se-82, 10^20 years, beta
Po-219  <300 nanosecond, beta decay.

You are confused, I have focused only on mechanisms of decay (alpha, beta, gamma), the fundamental forces involved (and particles), lack of foundations for claims of observation of variation with solar orbit, lack of an mechanism based on solar orbit that would affect the alpha, beta or gamma via the fundamental forces.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 You first asked how the sun could effect the strong nuclear binding force of a alpha decaying isotope and I told you that the force doesnt necessarily make them less vulnerable to reaction. In fact, alpha radioisotopes are often the most vulnerable to reaction.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're babbling - what reactions, and how would they depend on distance from the sun?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the other hand if  protons and neutrons can be rearranged inside the nucleus by deuterium tunneling and if cosmic rays and/or quantum tunneling can greatly effect reaction rates of radioisotopes and fission, its logical that it can also effect decay rates.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



More babble, and IFs with no evidence.  What would be logical is something that would change what is going in in the nuclear decay that is related to solar orbit.  So, what goes on in the sun - OUT.  What goes on elsewhere in space - OUT.  What changes with orbit is the distance and variation of neutrino flux is quite clearly evident there. Alas for you, neutrinos don't affect decay rates.  

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually its called quantum physics. You and your sun god priests love fantasizing about mutationism but when someone talks logically about a mutation that can effect your scriptures, the whole congregation starts foaming at the mouth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now you're babbling about something that is wholly unrelated to orbital influences on radioactive decay rates.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No answer to why alpha decay should be affected, eh? This group seeing variation in decay rates is seeing variation in alpha and beta decay.  The fact that alpha should not be affected at all casts doubt that this is not just observational artifact for ALL the results.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Radium decays alpha, beta, and gamma and Princeton and Purdue show that the decay rates do change
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The continued absence of answer is glaringly obvious.

Radium-???  There are these things called "isotopes".  Look it up.

Actually, these are currently unverified claims.  You keep credulously repeating them, because you are an IDiot.  There is a long history of a seasonal variation in measurement of decay rates, that does not mean it is real instead of instrument sensitivity to winter vs summer climate.  That is why other experiments using different measurement techniques are important.   Others have done this, with the result being - NO VARIATION.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 12 2011,23:44

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:07)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 12 2011,21:03)
Wow the word salad really comes out when they lose the argument doesn't it.

"Again, the fluctuations, assumptions, circular calibrations, contaminations, religious fervor, etc etc etc make your radiomagic dating a joke."

He has stated this and except for a 0.5% possible issue with fluctuations he has failed to show any other issues with dating.


"Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off"

So why the feck lead with the issue that only results in a 0.5% error. This is like the Mt St Helens thing - He has these magical super-secret proofs, but he trots out the tired old creationist carnards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually I already went over that stuff but y'all only want to discuss this new finding on fluctuating decay rates
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We must have all blinked and missed it because anything you have said has well and truly been refuted.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 12 2011,23:54

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,10:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey forastero, here's a reply, also published in Radiocarbon to your Keenan article.

< http://dendro.cornell.edu/article....02c.pdf >

I'll just add that Manning et. al. has another (minimum) 15 peer-reviewed articles published specifically discussing radiocarbon dating AFTER 2002.  Further, if you go to Manning's home page, there are at least three articles discussing radiocarbon calibration, at least two discussing the tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating, and one article discussing what we know and don't know about radiocarbon dates.  Most of these were also published in Radiocarbon.

Feel free to read them all and learn what's going on from an actual scientist, but do start with the response to Keenan's paper.

Enjoy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There be skullduggery goings on with yur pirates
< http://www.centuries.co.uk/uluburu....run.pdf > c14
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes a scientist is taken to task by other scientists when he can't backup his conclusions. This shows that if there was anything wrong systematically with dating methods some scientists will be onto it straight away.

This is extremely bad for your case as it shows for science to be open to examination
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,00:17

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 12 2011,19:21)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey it was those unromantically rude dudes who  doubted Troy, Babylon, Atlantis, Nineveh, and Nimrud too
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


forastero, there's an Abbott & Costello routine that's very appropriate here...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Costello: They said Newton was crazy! They said Einstein was crazy! They said Luigi was crazy!
Abbott: Hold on a second. Who's Luigi?
Costello: Oh, Luigi's my uncle. He is crazy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You YECs are crazy like Luigi, not crazy like Einstein.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm..sounds like some of those German documentaries of the 1930s-40s
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,00:49

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,21:41)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,21:44)
Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


("Again?" LOL!)

So, it is NOT your belief that "accumulative" errors in radiometric dating techniques are sufficient to account for a finding for the age of the earth that is 227,000x that of your wishful fiction.

Stated another way, you concede that, even given worst case inaccuracy, the radiometric evidence continues to indicate that the earth is significantly older than your wishful fiction of 20,000 years.

You don't credit that evidence "because its only a 'part' of the reason that your dating is way off." But stay with the radiometric data another moment.

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 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?

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?  

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%.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw, being obtuse is just another hand waving excuse to not put up your intellectual dukes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I posed this question nine times over two solid days before you muttered your response. Enough said.

ETA: a more accurate quote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think think the scientist plum lie a lot, including to themselves just like many of you


The decay rate topic didnt even come up until November 7th and I answered you the very next morning so you are believing your own faulty hype.

Btw, it came up after Ogre insisted that there was no evidence for fluctuating decay rates. Then when I proved the evidence, he suddenly claimed to have known about it all along, which is just lack of integrity
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,00:56

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 12 2011,23:54)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,10:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey forastero, here's a reply, also published in Radiocarbon to your Keenan article.

< http://dendro.cornell.edu/article....02c.pdf >

I'll just add that Manning et. al. has another (minimum) 15 peer-reviewed articles published specifically discussing radiocarbon dating AFTER 2002.  Further, if you go to Manning's home page, there are at least three articles discussing radiocarbon calibration, at least two discussing the tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating, and one article discussing what we know and don't know about radiocarbon dates.  Most of these were also published in Radiocarbon.

Feel free to read them all and learn what's going on from an actual scientist, but do start with the response to Keenan's paper.

Enjoy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There be skullduggery goings on with yur pirates
< http://www.centuries.co.uk/uluburu....run.pdf > c14
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes a scientist is taken to task by other scientists when he can't backup his conclusions. This shows that if there was anything wrong systematically with dating methods some scientists will be onto it straight away.

This is extremely bad for your case as it shows for science to be open to examination
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another case in point of you seeing a "scandal" as integrity which indicates either the dishonest propaganda and/or delusional denial
Posted by: paragwinn on Nov. 13 2011,01:01

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,18:19)
Btw 2, its ironic that this new age radioactive religion  is used to make up chronologies that attempt dismiss certain biblical chronologies, is believed to be the source of a mutationism to in an attempt to replace Creationism, is based on particles named after the demons (ancient god-kings) who killed off God's Creation, is used to make weapons that can destroy whats left of Creation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's your problem right there: demons. They'll get ya every time. 227,000x. 227001x, whatever it takes. Call Father Merrin and Father Karras, tell them we have an extraordinary case.
Posted by: paragwinn on Nov. 13 2011,01:27

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,16:45)
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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe forastero is going ""by the Book", following the regulation that bans uncoded messages on open channels, wherein "hours could seem like days" in order to fool the demons, especially the one named
< "KHAAAAAAAANN!!!!" >
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,01:42

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 12 2011,23:19)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,16:37)
 

You now seem to be confusing reaction and decay.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Er, what reaction exactly?  There is none proposed for what those papers claim except stuff they made up to explain something which probably does not exist.

You also mentioned stability which has bupkis to do with decay modes.

U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, alpha decay.
Rn-212, 24 min, alpha
Se-82, 10^20 years, beta
Po-219  <300 nanosecond, beta decay.

You are confused, I have focused only on mechanisms of decay (alpha, beta, gamma), the fundamental forces involved (and particles), lack of foundations for claims of observation of variation with solar orbit, lack of an mechanism based on solar orbit that would affect the alpha, beta or gamma via the fundamental forces.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 You first asked how the sun could effect the strong nuclear binding force of a alpha decaying isotope and I told you that the force doesnt necessarily make them less vulnerable to reaction. In fact, alpha radioisotopes are often the most vulnerable to reaction.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're babbling - what reactions, and how would they depend on distance from the sun?

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the other hand if  protons and neutrons can be rearranged inside the nucleus by deuterium tunneling and if cosmic rays and/or quantum tunneling can greatly effect reaction rates of radioisotopes and fission, its logical that it can also effect decay rates.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



More babble, and IFs with no evidence.  What would be logical is something that would change what is going in in the nuclear decay that is related to solar orbit.  So, what goes on in the sun - OUT.  What goes on elsewhere in space - OUT.  What changes with orbit is the distance and variation of neutrino flux is quite clearly evident there. Alas for you, neutrinos don't affect decay rates.  

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually its called quantum physics. You and your sun god priests love fantasizing about mutationism but when someone talks logically about a mutation that can effect your scriptures, the whole congregation starts foaming at the mouth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now you're babbling about something that is wholly unrelated to orbital influences on radioactive decay rates.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No answer to why alpha decay should be affected, eh? This group seeing variation in decay rates is seeing variation in alpha and beta decay.  The fact that alpha should not be affected at all casts doubt that this is not just observational artifact for ALL the results.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Radium decays alpha, beta, and gamma and Princeton and Purdue show that the decay rates do change
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The continued absence of answer is glaringly obvious.

Radium-???  There are these things called "isotopes".  Look it up.

Actually, these are currently unverified claims.  You keep credulously repeating them, because you are an IDiot.  There is a long history of a seasonal variation in measurement of decay rates, that does not mean it is real instead of instrument sensitivity to winter vs summer climate.  That is why other experiments using different measurement techniques are important.   Others have done this, with the result being - NO VARIATION.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Google radioisotope and "reaction" rate and nuclear force and activation energy and you will how they tie together  

“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 >

John Barrow of Cambridge University. “It’s a gigantic effect…It sounds as though it’s related [to solar activity], but it really can’t be.”
< http://physicsworld.com/cws....08 >  

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 >

“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.”
< http://io9.com/5619954....emistry >
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 13 2011,07:27

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,01:49)
I think think the scientist plum lie a lot, including to themselves just like many of you


The decay rate topic didnt even come up until November 7th and I answered you the very next morning so you are believing your own faulty hype.

Btw, it came up after Ogre insisted that there was no evidence for fluctuating decay rates. Then when I proved the evidence, he suddenly claimed to have known about it all along, which is just lack of integrity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This will be a more efficient conversation if you forgo the part where you flatly ignore a difficult question four or five times, as well the part where you mutter something irrelevant into your sleeve another three. This response counts as three sleeve-mutterings, so I'm optimistic that we can now get down to the actual question:

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?

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?  

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.

(I do accept your reply as a tacit admission that the literature does not remotely support your devoutly-to-be-wished-for 20,000 year earth. OOoooo, lying scientists! That's why nothing fits!)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 13 2011,07:39

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,00:49)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,21:41)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,21:44)
Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


("Again?" LOL!)

So, it is NOT your belief that "accumulative" errors in radiometric dating techniques are sufficient to account for a finding for the age of the earth that is 227,000x that of your wishful fiction.

Stated another way, you concede that, even given worst case inaccuracy, the radiometric evidence continues to indicate that the earth is significantly older than your wishful fiction of 20,000 years.

You don't credit that evidence "because its only a 'part' of the reason that your dating is way off." But stay with the radiometric data another moment.

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 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?

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?  

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%.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Btw, being obtuse is just another hand waving excuse to not put up your intellectual dukes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I posed this question nine times over two solid days before you muttered your response. Enough said.

ETA: a more accurate quote.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think think the scientist plum lie a lot, including to themselves just like many of you


The decay rate topic didnt even come up until November 7th and I answered you the very next morning so you are believing your own faulty hype.

Btw, it came up after Ogre insisted that there was no evidence for fluctuating decay rates. Then when I proved the evidence, he suddenly claimed to have known about it all along, which is just lack of integrity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote me, liar.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 13 2011,08:35

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:04)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 12 2011,17:32)
 
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)
You mean mot, not mute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Or possibly "moot".

       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:34)

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The reading comprehension is not strong in this one, is it?  Either that, or the ability to look up "radioisotope" in any convenient dictionary and understand the result.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thats three radioisotopes in that quote. A parent isotope can decay to different daughter or even granddaughter isotopes

To make it easy on you look at these isochron parent to daughter isotope dating techniques. I-Xe, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope. One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter element. Some radioisotopes (including 40K) decay to more than one daughter, but that's irrelevant.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 13 2011,09:00

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 13 2011,08:27)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,01:49)
I think think the scientist plum lie a lot, including to themselves just like many of you


The decay rate topic didnt even come up until November 7th and I answered you the very next morning so you are believing your own faulty hype.

Btw, it came up after Ogre insisted that there was no evidence for fluctuating decay rates. Then when I proved the evidence, he suddenly claimed to have known about it all along, which is just lack of integrity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This will be a more efficient conversation if you forgo the part where you flatly ignore a difficult question four or five times, as well the part where you mutter something irrelevant into your sleeve another three. This response counts as three sleeve-mutterings, so I'm optimistic that we can now get down to the actual question:

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?

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?  

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.

(I do accept your reply as a tacit admission that the literature does not remotely support your devoutly-to-be-wished-for 20,000 year earth. OOoooo, lying scientists! That's why nothing fits!)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL

the part where


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This will be a more efficient conversation if you forgo the part where you flatly ignore a difficult question four or five times, as well the part where you mutter something irrelevant into your sleeve another three
---------------------QUOTE-------------------





fourass are you trying to have an efficient conversation or are you just pulling on your pud?

I suggest that you skip all this clumsy foreplay and go straight to the part where we need to accept your Jesus to pay for your sins.  Because you ain't really doing much to maintain any interest in educating your stupid ass
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 13 2011,10:26

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,01:42)
   
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 12 2011,23:19)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,16:37)
 

You now seem to be confusing reaction and decay.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Er, what reaction exactly?  There is none proposed for what those papers claim except stuff they made up to explain something which probably does not exist.

You also mentioned stability which has bupkis to do with decay modes.

U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, alpha decay.
Rn-212, 24 min, alpha
Se-82, 10^20 years, beta
Po-219  <300 nanosecond, beta decay.

You are confused, I have focused only on mechanisms of decay (alpha, beta, gamma), the fundamental forces involved (and particles), lack of foundations for claims of observation of variation with solar orbit, lack of an mechanism based on solar orbit that would affect the alpha, beta or gamma via the fundamental forces.

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 You first asked how the sun could effect the strong nuclear binding force of a alpha decaying isotope and I told you that the force doesnt necessarily make them less vulnerable to reaction. In fact, alpha radioisotopes are often the most vulnerable to reaction.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're babbling - what reactions, and how would they depend on distance from the sun?

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
On the other hand if  protons and neutrons can be rearranged inside the nucleus by deuterium tunneling and if cosmic rays and/or quantum tunneling can greatly effect reaction rates of radioisotopes and fission, its logical that it can also effect decay rates.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



More babble, and IFs with no evidence.  What would be logical is something that would change what is going in in the nuclear decay that is related to solar orbit.  So, what goes on in the sun - OUT.  What goes on elsewhere in space - OUT.  What changes with orbit is the distance and variation of neutrino flux is quite clearly evident there. Alas for you, neutrinos don't affect decay rates.  

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Actually its called quantum physics. You and your sun god priests love fantasizing about mutationism but when someone talks logically about a mutation that can effect your scriptures, the whole congregation starts foaming at the mouth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now you're babbling about something that is wholly unrelated to orbital influences on radioactive decay rates.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No answer to why alpha decay should be affected, eh? This group seeing variation in decay rates is seeing variation in alpha and beta decay.  The fact that alpha should not be affected at all casts doubt that this is not just observational artifact for ALL the results.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Radium decays alpha, beta, and gamma and Princeton and Purdue show that the decay rates do change
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



The continued absence of answer is glaringly obvious.

Radium-???  There are these things called "isotopes".  Look it up.

Actually, these are currently unverified claims.  You keep credulously repeating them, because you are an IDiot.  There is a long history of a seasonal variation in measurement of decay rates, that does not mean it is real instead of instrument sensitivity to winter vs summer climate.  That is why other experiments using different measurement techniques are important.   Others have done this, with the result being - NO VARIATION.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Google radioisotope and "reaction" rate and nuclear force and activation energy and you will how they tie together  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What is needed is an argument for CHANGES in these rather vaguely described processes on your part.

All your sources (which I deleted since they are superfluous - we've seen you repeat them unthinkingly every time)  are from the same group making the same claims that aren't holding up.

Nobody is fooled.

My arguments are unanswered still.  The only reason I am interested in this particular issue is that it shows a pathological thinking process on your part.  Putative oscillating decay rates would have NO effect on a radiodate, which makes it curious why you insist on defending this.

Although I am interested in these staffs in all cultures that record the Global Flood - any progress on finding one?  I suggest you google it.  :p

Edited to add, 1) because I can and you can't, and 2) you claim scientists lie a lot: why do you believe the Purdue et al scientists and not the others?  Do you have a procedure for doing this that does not depend on other scientists, who could also be lying?  By the way, I have found that people who think everybody else is a liar is just projecting their personality onto others.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 13 2011,10:35

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey forastero, here's a reply, also published in Radiocarbon to your Keenan article.

< http://dendro.cornell.edu/article....02c.pdf >

I'll just add that Manning et. al. has another (minimum) 15 peer-reviewed articles published specifically discussing radiocarbon dating AFTER 2002.  Further, if you go to Manning's home page, there are at least three articles discussing radiocarbon calibration, at least two discussing the tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating, and one article discussing what we know and don't know about radiocarbon dates.  Most of these were also published in Radiocarbon.

Feel free to read them all and learn what's going on from an actual scientist, but do start with the response to Keenan's paper.

Enjoy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There be skullduggery goings on with yur pirates
< http://www.centuries.co.uk/uluburu....run.pdf > c14
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Keenan got beat like a rented mule, and you find a PDF on a series of tubes.  Ooooh!
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 13 2011,10:41

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,00:17)
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 12 2011,19:21)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey it was those unromantically rude dudes who  doubted Troy, Babylon, Atlantis, Nineveh, and Nimrud too
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


forastero, there's an Abbott & Costello routine that's very appropriate here...
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Costello: They said Newton was crazy! They said Einstein was crazy! They said Luigi was crazy!
Abbott: Hold on a second. Who's Luigi?
Costello: Oh, Luigi's my uncle. He is crazy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You YECs are crazy like Luigi, not crazy like Einstein.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hmm..sounds like some of those German documentaries of the 1930s-40s
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, I remember Abbott and Costello well - just like a slapstick Nazi documentary.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 13 2011,10:51

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 12 2011,21:03)
Wow the word salad really comes out when they lose the argument doesn't it.

"Again, the fluctuations, assumptions, circular calibrations, contaminations, religious fervor, etc etc etc make your radiomagic dating a joke."

He has stated this and except for a 0.5% possible issue with fluctuations he has failed to show any other issues with dating.


"Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off"

So why the feck lead with the issue that only results in a 0.5% error. This is like the Mt St Helens thing - He has these magical super-secret proofs, but he trots out the tired old creationist carnards.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because he is a YEC idiot.  The thinking process goes like this:

A simple-minded application of a constant decay rate to date objects obviously shows YEC to be a huge pile of steaming crap.  Forastero thinks that if he can show that this caricature is not strictly correct, therefore YEC is NOT a steaming pile of crap.  Whereas real scientists understand the process and account for all the influences forastero mentions.

That is why he cannot handle the factor of 227,000 he needs, as a matter of fact he must not mention numbers in order to obscure the fact that not only is he wrong, but 227,000 x wrong.  No pathetic level of detail for forastero!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 13 2011,11:04

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,20:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25)
Hey forastero, here's a reply, also published in Radiocarbon to your Keenan article.

< http://dendro.cornell.edu/article....02c.pdf >

I'll just add that Manning et. al. has another (minimum) 15 peer-reviewed articles published specifically discussing radiocarbon dating AFTER 2002.  Further, if you go to Manning's home page, there are at least three articles discussing radiocarbon calibration, at least two discussing the tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating, and one article discussing what we know and don't know about radiocarbon dates.  Most of these were also published in Radiocarbon.

Feel free to read them all and learn what's going on from an actual scientist, but do start with the response to Keenan's paper.

Enjoy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There be skullduggery goings on with yur pirates
< http://www.centuries.co.uk/uluburu....run.pdf > c14
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


baaahahahahaha




this is the lamest bullshit you have said on this thread, yet

how the fuck can you even pretend that has fuckall to do with anything, oh that's right you are aetheistocyst
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,11:06

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 13 2011,07:27)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,01:49)
I think think the scientist plum lie a lot, including to themselves just like many of you


The decay rate topic didnt even come up until November 7th and I answered you the very next morning so you are believing your own faulty hype.

Btw, it came up after Ogre insisted that there was no evidence for fluctuating decay rates. Then when I proved the evidence, he suddenly claimed to have known about it all along, which is just lack of integrity
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This will be a more efficient conversation if you forgo the part where you flatly ignore a difficult question four or five times, as well the part where you mutter something irrelevant into your sleeve another three. This response counts as three sleeve-mutterings, so I'm optimistic that we can now get down to the actual question:

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?

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?  

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.

(I do accept your reply as a tacit admission that the literature does not remotely support your devoutly-to-be-wished-for 20,000 year earth. OOoooo, lying scientists! That's why nothing fits!)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I realize that you mutationists like to try to make clocks out of random events but you cant really put a number on these random tunneling mutations of decay. Plus, radioisotopes have different decay events, sensitivities, binding forces and energy barriers that require a specific activation energy that reactants must surpass in order to nudge it into decaying. However, quantum mechanics is still in its infancy so we will be finding out more in the future about these decay mutations.

In the mean time though:

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted
Unfossilized duck-billed dinosaur bones have been found on the North Slope

Dinosaur mummy yields organic molecules

Proteins have been successfully extracted from the fossil vertebra of a 150-million-year-old sauropod dinosaur ("Seismosaurus")

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.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,11:17

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)
Quote me, liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 13 2011,11:18

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:06)
I realize that you mutationists like to try to make clocks out of random events but you cant really put a number on these random tunneling mutations of decay.

<snipped piles and piles of cowardly horseshit>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


not even, say, a number between 1 and 227,000?

you are the biggest pussy that ever came in here and vomited this same old bullshit all over a thread.  i usually don't use superlatives but you've earned it champ
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,11:32

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 13 2011,08:35)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:04)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 12 2011,17:32)
   
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)
You mean mot, not mute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Or possibly "moot".

       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:34)

             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The reading comprehension is not strong in this one, is it?  Either that, or the ability to look up "radioisotope" in any convenient dictionary and understand the result.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thats three radioisotopes in that quote. A parent isotope can decay to different daughter or even granddaughter isotopes

To make it easy on you look at these isochron parent to daughter isotope dating techniques. I-Xe, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope. One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter element. Some radioisotopes (including 40K) decay to more than one daughter, but that's irrelevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


“The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.”  
< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....th.html >

< http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 13 2011,11:32

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:06)
I realize that you mutationists like to try to make clocks out of random events but you cant really put a number on these random tunneling mutations of decay. Plus, radioisotopes have different decay events, sensitivities, binding forces and energy barriers that require a specific activation energy that reactants must surpass in order to nudge it into decaying. However, quantum mechanics is still in its infancy so we will be finding out more in the future about these decay mutations.

In the mean time though:

Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue

Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted
Unfossilized duck-billed dinosaur bones have been found on the North Slope

Dinosaur mummy yields organic molecules

Proteins have been successfully extracted from the fossil vertebra of a 150-million-year-old sauropod dinosaur ("Seismosaurus")

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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I notice is that you haven't answered the question. Rather, I read more sleeve-mutterings of irrelevancies, then a quick attempted presto-chango of the subject.

But the questions (still unanswered) were:

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?  

Try to answer the question. It's God's work.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,11:40

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 13 2011,11:18)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:06)
I realize that you mutationists like to try to make clocks out of random events but you cant really put a number on these random tunneling mutations of decay.

<snipped piles and piles of cowardly horseshit>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


not even, say, a number between 1 and 227,000?

you are the biggest pussy that ever came in here and vomited this same old bullshit all over a thread.  i usually don't use superlatives but you've earned it champ
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So why you so mad? Is it cause you've adapted to the darkness and hate the light?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 13 2011,11:43

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:40)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 13 2011,11:18)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:06)
I realize that you mutationists like to try to make clocks out of random events but you cant really put a number on these random tunneling mutations of decay.

<snipped piles and piles of cowardly horseshit>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


not even, say, a number between 1 and 227,000?

you are the biggest pussy that ever came in here and vomited this same old bullshit all over a thread.  i usually don't use superlatives but you've earned it champ
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So why you so mad? Is it cause you've adapted to the darkness and hate the light?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


baahahahaha



you the one talking about some darwinian high sun god priests and all that bullshit you obviously mad about SOMETHING

just because i point how stupid you are don't mean i am all het up about it sugar LOL

Why don't you answer RB's questions, chickenshit??
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,12:03

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2011,23:25)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,22:56)
Calibration in radiometric dating is comparing dates with another accepted date like with tree rings or historic records

isochon dating calibrates itself with isochron datings
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not that there'd be anything wrong with isochrons validating isochrons--the physics is well-established--but that ignorant claim is just not true:

< Cyclostratigraphy confirms radiometric dating past 100 million years >

And there's really no question that the sun can't be enormously older or younger than around four and a half billion years.

As for the flood, evaporite deposits could hardly result from a flood, nor is the enormous amount of bioturbation, including huge numbers of worm burrows, consistent with any flood.  Not that creationists care about actual evidence.

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'll pick on your best Cyclostratigraphy

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. In order to revamp support for the theory, evolutionists garnered supporting evidence from deep-sea and ice cores.

Sediment cores assumed older than 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

Ice-core samples reveal multiple, rapid oscillation (usually 100 year cycles) so those 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 >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 13 2011,12:08

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,13:03)
I'll pick on your best Cyclostratigraphy

snip whining appeal to chickenshittery
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you damn right you will.

instead of answering RB's question

baahahahahaha


Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,12:39

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 21 2011,05:55)
People who can't manage topicality elsewhere can always be topical in a thread devoted to them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey you gonna let Krea Kong swing on the other threads some day and why you take his picture poster away? He just wants to play so why y'all so afraid? Is their some image at stake like a banner fake?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 13 2011,12:39

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,11:17)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)
Quote me, liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See forastero, you are not in a debate.  This is a forum.  It is a place where every comment is permanently placed in a location you can't edit it.  The same, of course, goes for us.

You made a claim.  Back it up with evidence (for once in your life).  Provide the quote or retract your claim.

BTW: What exactly exploded to cause the Big Bang?  And where in the geologic column should we look for the world-wide flood layer?

These questions are consequences of your claims.  You cannot support them.

I conclude that you are pretty much worthless as comes to research.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 13 2011,12:44

the muppet has so many excuses in it's hands it doesn't know what to do with them

hey, fourass, do what you always do.  FAP!
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,12:51

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,12:39)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,11:17)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)
Quote me, liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See forastero, you are not in a debate.  This is a forum.  It is a place where every comment is permanently placed in a location you can't edit it.  The same, of course, goes for us.

You made a claim.  Back it up with evidence (for once in your life).  Provide the quote or retract your claim.

BTW: What exactly exploded to cause the Big Bang?  And where in the geologic column should we look for the world-wide flood layer?

These questions are consequences of your claims.  You cannot support them.

I conclude that you are pretty much worthless as comes to research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good try but all the evolution guys edit doodoo like flies so your just sewing more lies
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 13 2011,12:54

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:03)
Sediment cores assumed older than 40,000 years old are very often dated using isochon methods.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you believe the earth is younger then that, so what gives?

And speaking of sediment cores, there must be quite the layer of sediment that the global flood put down. Where is it?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,12:56

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,12:39)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,11:17)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)
Quote me, liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See forastero, you are not in a debate.  This is a forum.  It is a place where every comment is permanently placed in a location you can't edit it.  The same, of course, goes for us.

You made a claim.  Back it up with evidence (for once in your life).  Provide the quote or retract your claim.

BTW: What exactly exploded to cause the Big Bang?  And where in the geologic column should we look for the world-wide flood layer?

These questions are consequences of your claims.  You cannot support them.

I conclude that you are pretty much worthless as comes to research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's a hint, just look at the billions of tons of coal and petroleo

Hey ogre so what is your big bang theory?
And when you gonna list all these so called geologic columns you keep harping on?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,13:00

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,12:54)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:03)
Sediment cores assumed older than 40,000 years old are very often dated using isochon methods.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you believe the earth is younger then that, so what gives?

And speaking of sediment cores, there must be quite the layer of sediment that the global flood put down. Where is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well you are taking it out of context and notice I said "assumed"; and not by me but by your church mates

Yep and 99.9 percent of fossils are laid down in water
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 13 2011,13:09

i missed it, did we get some sweaty wrestlers?  i knew they were coming
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 13 2011,13:37

forastero:

The questions (still unanswered - who'd a thought?) are:

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?  

Come clean now. Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 13 2011,13:49

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:32)
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 13 2011,08:35)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:04)
   
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 12 2011,17:32)
     
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)
You mean mot, not mute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Or possibly "moot".

         
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:34)

               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The reading comprehension is not strong in this one, is it?  Either that, or the ability to look up "radioisotope" in any convenient dictionary and understand the result.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thats three radioisotopes in that quote. A parent isotope can decay to different daughter or even granddaughter isotopes

To make it easy on you look at these isochron parent to daughter isotope dating techniques. I-Xe, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope. One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter element. Some radioisotopes (including 40K) decay to more than one daughter, but that's irrelevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


“The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.”  
< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......th.html >

< http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hee hee hee! You dug up one of the unusual isochron methods!

In the quote from the isochron page at T.O., which is what we are discussing, there is one radioisotope, one daughter isotope, and one stable isotope of the daughter isotope element. You were wrong.

But Pb-Pb isochrons involve many radioisotopes and daughter isotopes and one stable isotope of the daughter isotope, I hear you whine!

I'm way ahead of you. As usual. Back on page 27 I responded to you:

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,14:28)
 
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You still don't have the faintest idea of how isochron dating works. When you figure it out, from the links I gave, maybe we can have a discussion.

(In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used. And you haven't a clue from whence samples come).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note that you said "Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes". Not "A few isochron methods involve taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes".

You were wrong. In general, isochron dating involves one radioisotope, one daughter isotope, and one stable isotope of the daughter element. The T.O. page on isochrons, which the subject of this side discussion, that's the kind of isochrons that are covered.

But I carefully wrote "In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used". Note "...almost all the isochron methods...". I know about Pb-Pb isochrons, which are not at all typical of isochron methods. I was correct. Again.

Wotta maroon!
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 13 2011,15:06

forastero,

try to grasp the simple concepts first.  In your population equation (that's generous, but we'll call it population), how do you derive your growth rate?

A correct answer to this question will involve A) but not B)


A)  these assumptions are starting points and these factors affect the growth rate

B)  a stand alone number

Thanks for clearing things up.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,15:55

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 13 2011,13:49)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:32)
 
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 13 2011,08:35)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:04)
     
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 12 2011,17:32)
     
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)
You mean mot, not mute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Or possibly "moot".

           
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:34)

               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The reading comprehension is not strong in this one, is it?  Either that, or the ability to look up "radioisotope" in any convenient dictionary and understand the result.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thats three radioisotopes in that quote. A parent isotope can decay to different daughter or even granddaughter isotopes

To make it easy on you look at these isochron parent to daughter isotope dating techniques. I-Xe, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope. One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter element. Some radioisotopes (including 40K) decay to more than one daughter, but that's irrelevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


“The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.”  
< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......th.html >

< http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hee hee hee! You dug up one of the unusual isochron methods!

In the quote from the isochron page at T.O., which is what we are discussing, there is one radioisotope, one daughter isotope, and one stable isotope of the daughter isotope element. You were wrong.

But Pb-Pb isochrons involve many radioisotopes and daughter isotopes and one stable isotope of the daughter isotope, I hear you whine!

I'm way ahead of you. As usual. Back on page 27 I responded to you:

 
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,14:28)
 
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You still don't have the faintest idea of how isochron dating works. When you figure it out, from the links I gave, maybe we can have a discussion.

(In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used. And you haven't a clue from whence samples come).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note that you said "Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes". Not "A few isochron methods involve taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes".

You were wrong. In general, isochron dating involves one radioisotope, one daughter isotope, and one stable isotope of the daughter element. The T.O. page on isochrons, which the subject of this side discussion, that's the kind of isochrons that are covered.

But I carefully wrote "In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used". Note "...almost all the isochron methods...". I know about Pb-Pb isochrons, which are not at all typical of isochron methods. I was correct. Again.

Wotta maroon!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The following popular isochron parent to daughter elements involve a parent radioisotope decaying to a daughter radioisotope that in turn almost always decays either beta, alpha, Isomeric,electron capture, or fission  radioactivity

K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,15:57

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 13 2011,15:06)
forastero,

try to grasp the simple concepts first.  In your population equation (that's generous, but we'll call it population), how do you derive your growth rate?

A correct answer to this question will involve A) but not B)


A)  these assumptions are starting points and these factors affect the growth rate

B)  a stand alone number

Thanks for clearing things up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just picked a very conservative .5% for sake of argument
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 13 2011,16:04

forastero,
So who is right?

Can you put me straight as to the true facts?

For example, is it Walt Brown? Does he know the truth?

< http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb....II.html >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please provide me some reading material from the people who, in your opinion, got it right.

I'm bored of hearing how everything is wrong. Tell me who you think is right instead!
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,16:26

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,16:04)
forastero,
So who is right?

Can you put me straight as to the true facts?

For example, is it Walt Brown? Does he know the truth?

< http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb....II.html >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please provide me some reading material from the people who, in your opinion, got it right.

I'm bored of hearing how everything is wrong. Tell me who you think is right instead!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good thing I have answered every question presented to me about the Flood such as post population, traditions, fossil records, dating, fossils, fossil fuels etc..etc...
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 13 2011,16:59

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,16:26)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,16:04)
forastero,
So who is right?

Can you put me straight as to the true facts?

For example, is it Walt Brown? Does he know the truth?

< http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb....II.html >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please provide me some reading material from the people who, in your opinion, got it right.

I'm bored of hearing how everything is wrong. Tell me who you think is right instead!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good thing I have answered every question presented to me about the Flood such as post population, traditions, fossil records, dating, fossils, fossil fuels etc..etc...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For certain values of "answered" that is certainly true.

So, you've been able to answer every question asked.

When are you writing your book then, the book that'll put the world straight as to how things really are?

Or are you one of Dembski's "undercover" students out for their 4000 words or whatever it is?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 13 2011,17:04

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:51)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,12:39)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,11:17)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)
Quote me, liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See forastero, you are not in a debate.  This is a forum.  It is a place where every comment is permanently placed in a location you can't edit it.  The same, of course, goes for us.

You made a claim.  Back it up with evidence (for once in your life).  Provide the quote or retract your claim.

BTW: What exactly exploded to cause the Big Bang?  And where in the geologic column should we look for the world-wide flood layer?

These questions are consequences of your claims.  You cannot support them.

I conclude that you are pretty much worthless as comes to research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good try but all the evolution guys edit doodoo like flies so your just sewing more lies
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry to burst your bubble forastero

But you see this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 13 2011,09:31
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This statement will appear on any post edited.  So, IF the post where I claimed to already know about something was edited, then you would be able to tell.

But whatever.

It still doesn't change the fact that you don't have a clue.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,17:05

Btw,

I recall The Flood: In the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology and Henry Morris Genesis record being good

Christian Research Institute is good

..but I am sure there are better ones
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 13 2011,17:23

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:56)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,12:39)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,11:17)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)
Quote me, liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See forastero, you are not in a debate.  This is a forum.  It is a place where every comment is permanently placed in a location you can't edit it.  The same, of course, goes for us.

You made a claim.  Back it up with evidence (for once in your life).  Provide the quote or retract your claim.

BTW: What exactly exploded to cause the Big Bang?  And where in the geologic column should we look for the world-wide flood layer?

These questions are consequences of your claims.  You cannot support them.

I conclude that you are pretty much worthless as comes to research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's a hint, just look at the billions of tons of coal and petroleo

Hey ogre so what is your big bang theory?
And when you gonna list all these so called geologic columns you keep harping on?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really forastero?  There is a single coal formation that covers the entire world.  Really?  Which one?  What's the name of it and IS IT PRESENT IN ALL 26 LOCATIONS WITH A COMPLETE FOSSIL RECORD?

You see, your claim is that a flood existed.  Your claim requires that there be ONE formation of sediment (which it barely is, because of the metamorphic properties that must happen to produce coal).  

So, which coal formation is it.  For example: this website < http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DMR3....n.shtml >

lists a minimum of 42 coal beds (just in one are of VA) (I stopped counting there) that are interspersed with limestone, shales, and sandstones.  

So is it your contention that all coal was formed in the flood?  That is obviously impossible to square with reality.

So which coal bed should we be looking at?

Why do you think it is a coal bed?  
Considering the amount of sediment of all kinds that would result, why not a sandstone?  Obviously siltstones are right out.

I know you'll get right on that, since your previous answer was so detailed.  BTW: How do you know or is that just a Wild-Assed Guess from someone with no knowledge of geology, coal formation, or correlation?

You know my Big Bang theory.  It's the same as what modern cosmologists have come up with.  What's yours... you made a claim that you say is supported by scientists that something actually exploded to cause the big bang, what was it?  C4?  A mini-nuke?  antimatter?  quark-gluon plasma?  what?  And how do you know?

The geologic columns I keep harping on the ones where you need to do your work to support your claims.  It should be very easy, I've given you several hints, or do you just need someone to do your work for you?  Because I'm not interested.

Comon, 26 geologic columns, spread all over the world, contain complete sequences from precambrian to tertiary.  First, I believe you claimed that was wrong... so it should be easy to prove my claim is wrong.  Just find out if they exist or not.
Second, your claim that a great flood that buried the entire Earth existed would result in a single layer of sediment that should be visible all over the world (we do have one example of a layer that appears all over the world).  Where is it?  What layer and how do you know?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 13 2011,17:48

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,18:04)
Sorry to burst your bubble forastero

But you see this:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 13 2011,09:31
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This statement will appear on any post edited.  So, IF the post where I claimed to already know about something was edited, then you would be able to tell.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, that is only true for administrators and moderators, not serfs like you and me.

ETA: Hence it is polite form to include a note like this when you've substantively edited a post.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 13 2011,17:51

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,17:26)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,16:04)
forastero,
So who is right?

Can you put me straight as to the true facts?

For example, is it Walt Brown? Does he know the truth?

< http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb....II.html >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please provide me some reading material from the people who, in your opinion, got it right.

I'm bored of hearing how everything is wrong. Tell me who you think is right instead!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good thing I have answered every question presented to me about the Flood such as post population, traditions, fossil records, dating, fossils, fossil fuels etc..etc...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


When it happened? Not so much.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 13 2011,17:53

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,16:26)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,16:04)
forastero,
So who is right?

Can you put me straight as to the true facts?

For example, is it Walt Brown? Does he know the truth?

< http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb....II.html >
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please provide me some reading material from the people who, in your opinion, got it right.

I'm bored of hearing how everything is wrong. Tell me who you think is right instead!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good thing I have answered every question presented to me about the Flood such as post population, traditions, fossil records, dating, fossils, fossil fuels etc..etc...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutley untrue.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:05)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,13:03)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:18)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:02)
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-------------------


I'm still waiting to hear how whole civilizations destroyed by the global flood recorded the even on their staffs and passed the story down to future generations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And still waiting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do a study on ancient scriptures and oral traditions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Erm no. Tell me how cultures who are completely wiped out i.e. not on the boat, manage to pass anything down.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,18:10

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,17:04)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:51)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,12:39)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,11:17)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)
Quote me, liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See forastero, you are not in a debate.  This is a forum.  It is a place where every comment is permanently placed in a location you can't edit it.  The same, of course, goes for us.

You made a claim.  Back it up with evidence (for once in your life).  Provide the quote or retract your claim.

BTW: What exactly exploded to cause the Big Bang?  And where in the geologic column should we look for the world-wide flood layer?

These questions are consequences of your claims.  You cannot support them.

I conclude that you are pretty much worthless as comes to research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good try but all the evolution guys edit doodoo like flies so your just sewing more lies
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry to burst your bubble forastero

But you see this:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 13 2011,09:31
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This statement will appear on any post edited.  So, IF the post where I claimed to already know about something was edited, then you would be able to tell.

But whatever.

It still doesn't change the fact that you don't have a clue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nov. 07 2011,10:14 For example, the decay rate of radioactive materials and the speed of light.  The energy released in H-H fusion.  None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so).

Nov. 07 2011,14:33 My research shows that the decay rate varies based on the sun.  The rotation of the solar core AND the distance from the Earth to the sun.

Nov. 08 2011,12:10 “We aren't dismissing the gravity (ahem) of the fluctuations. We're dismissing your claim that they exist.”


See, Scientific flipflopping
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,18:16

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2011,17:53)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,16:26)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,16:04)
forastero,
So who is right?

Can you put me straight as to the true facts?

For example, is it Walt Brown? Does he know the truth?

< http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb....II.html >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please provide me some reading material from the people who, in your opinion, got it right.

I'm bored of hearing how everything is wrong. Tell me who you think is right instead!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good thing I have answered every question presented to me about the Flood such as post population, traditions, fossil records, dating, fossils, fossil fuels etc..etc...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutley untrue.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:05)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,13:03)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:18)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:02)
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-------------------


I'm still waiting to hear how whole civilizations destroyed by the global flood recorded the even on their staffs and passed the story down to future generations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And still waiting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do a study on ancient scriptures and oral traditions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Erm no. Tell me how cultures who are completely wiped out i.e. not on the boat, manage to pass anything down.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Erm no. Tell me how cultures who are completely wiped out i.e. not on the boat, manage to pass anything down.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, the ancient cultures of the Semitic, Hamitic and Japhetic peoples claimed to have got it passed down from Noah or a Noah-like hero or imposter
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 13 2011,18:19

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,18:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2011,17:53)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,16:26)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,16:04)
forastero,
So who is right?

Can you put me straight as to the true facts?

For example, is it Walt Brown? Does he know the truth?

< http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb....II.html >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please provide me some reading material from the people who, in your opinion, got it right.

I'm bored of hearing how everything is wrong. Tell me who you think is right instead!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good thing I have answered every question presented to me about the Flood such as post population, traditions, fossil records, dating, fossils, fossil fuels etc..etc...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutley untrue.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:05)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,13:03)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:18)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:02)
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-------------------


I'm still waiting to hear how whole civilizations destroyed by the global flood recorded the even on their staffs and passed the story down to future generations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And still waiting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do a study on ancient scriptures and oral traditions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Erm no. Tell me how cultures who are completely wiped out i.e. not on the boat, manage to pass anything down.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Erm no. Tell me how cultures who are completely wiped out i.e. not on the boat, manage to pass anything down.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, the ancient cultures of the Semitic, Hamitic and Japhetic peoples claimed to have got it passed down from Noah or a Noah-like hero or imposter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By your 'logic', these can't be cultures destroyed by the flood, as they are descended from Noah. So, try again.
Posted by: khan on Nov. 13 2011,18:43

just sewing more lies

I think you mean "sowing".
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 13 2011,19:05

Quote (khan @ Nov. 13 2011,19:43)
just sewing more lies

I think you mean "sowing".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


he doesn't really care
Posted by: khan on Nov. 13 2011,19:07

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 13 2011,20:05)
Quote (khan @ Nov. 13 2011,19:43)
just sewing more lies

I think you mean "sowing".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


he doesn't really care
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is difficult to take someone seriously when they can not communicate in complete sentences.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 13 2011,19:10

Quote (khan @ Nov. 13 2011,20:07)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 13 2011,20:05)
 
Quote (khan @ Nov. 13 2011,19:43)
just sewing more lies

I think you mean "sowing".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


he doesn't really care
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is difficult to take someone seriously when they can not communicate in complete sentences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


if anyone is taking this dipshit seriously they themselves should not be taken seriously.

now, mocking the poor dumb bastard, yes by all means we can all take that seriously.  the only worthwhile purpose the muppet can serve is as a dancing spittoon.  

dance, muppet!  and answer RB's question you pussy
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 13 2011,19:57

forastero: The questions are:

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?  

Come clean now. Floss regularly.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 13 2011,20:55

"the lard works in mysterious ways" aint no answer neither

or is it?  that's about what you got left to reach for.  consilience is a wicked bitch eh  

hey i know, "the vapor canopy angels came down and fucked with the rates of radioisochromowhatsis your evilutionsit never consdier taht", right fourass?  throw some capslock up in there for giggles and shit


Hey, listen, how about you tell reciprocating bill exactly how wrong the estimates are, or go fuck yourself.  

we all get that you think radiometric estimates are wrong.  how wrong?  

you are saying you know they are wrong, and here you have the very most people in the whole world who you can prove this too, you, not-athiestocyst, but some other similarly disordered rebel without claws.  well now explain.  

you've got five orders of magnitude to wave away now with your profuse gyrations about the point and the truth.  so dance, muppet!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 13 2011,22:01

two men are arguing.  perhaps they are lovers.  one says they together owe a third man, a dollar.  the other man says that they owe this man 227,000 dollars.  one of the men is lying.  ????
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 13 2011,22:17

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,18:10)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,17:04)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:51)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,12:39)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,11:17)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)
Quote me, liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See forastero, you are not in a debate.  This is a forum.  It is a place where every comment is permanently placed in a location you can't edit it.  The same, of course, goes for us.

You made a claim.  Back it up with evidence (for once in your life).  Provide the quote or retract your claim.

BTW: What exactly exploded to cause the Big Bang?  And where in the geologic column should we look for the world-wide flood layer?

These questions are consequences of your claims.  You cannot support them.

I conclude that you are pretty much worthless as comes to research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good try but all the evolution guys edit doodoo like flies so your just sewing more lies
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry to burst your bubble forastero

But you see this:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 13 2011,09:31
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This statement will appear on any post edited.  So, IF the post where I claimed to already know about something was edited, then you would be able to tell.

But whatever.

It still doesn't change the fact that you don't have a clue.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nov. 07 2011,10:14 For example, the decay rate of radioactive materials and the speed of light.  The energy released in H-H fusion.  None of these things have changed over the observed history of the universe (some 13 billion years or so).

Nov. 07 2011,14:33 My research shows that the decay rate varies based on the sun.  The rotation of the solar core AND the distance from the Earth to the sun.

Nov. 08 2011,12:10 “We aren't dismissing the gravity (ahem) of the fluctuations. We're dismissing your claim that they exist.”


See, Scientific flipflopping
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice try forastero... quotemining on a forum where all records are available.

1st quote: None of them have changed.  

2nd quote: Following up on the evidence showed one report where the decay rate varied seasonally.

3rd quote: Found out that the claims made for decay rates are... shall we say... suspect.

It's called science.  You might want to try it some time.

Still refuse to state your own position and let us pick it apart?  Ah well.

BTW: Which coal bed?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 13 2011,23:25

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,18:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2011,17:53)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,16:26)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2011,16:04)
forastero,
So who is right?

Can you put me straight as to the true facts?

For example, is it Walt Brown? Does he know the truth?

< http://www.creationscience.com/onlineb....II.html >
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Past failure to answer honest flood questions opened the door to evolution and old-earth beliefs. Answering those questions will begin to (1) reestablish the flood as earth’s defining geological event, and (2) reverse serious errors that have crept into science and society. Don’t be surprised at how catastrophic the flood was. Just follow the evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please provide me some reading material from the people who, in your opinion, got it right.

I'm bored of hearing how everything is wrong. Tell me who you think is right instead!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good thing I have answered every question presented to me about the Flood such as post population, traditions, fossil records, dating, fossils, fossil fuels etc..etc...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutley untrue.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:05)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,13:03)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 10 2011,12:18)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:02)
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-------------------


I'm still waiting to hear how whole civilizations destroyed by the global flood recorded the even on their staffs and passed the story down to future generations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And still waiting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do a study on ancient scriptures and oral traditions
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Erm no. Tell me how cultures who are completely wiped out i.e. not on the boat, manage to pass anything down.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Erm no. Tell me how cultures who are completely wiped out i.e. not on the boat, manage to pass anything down.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, the ancient cultures of the Semitic, Hamitic and Japhetic peoples claimed to have got it passed down from Noah or a Noah-like hero or imposter
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How is that when they didnt even appear in the Table of Nations until after the Flood?
Posted by: MichaelJ on Nov. 14 2011,02:21

Unfortunately the Table of Nations was written in the seventh century BCE as a post-hoc explanation of the nations of the time. A good clue that this section was written at this time is that while some of the nations mentioned only recently appeared in the 8-7 centuries and certainly weren't started at around 2000BCE
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 14 2011,06:29

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 14 2011,02:21)
Unfortunately the Table of Nations was written in the seventh century BCE as a post-hoc explanation of the nations of the time. A good clue that this section was written at this time is that while some of the nations mentioned only recently appeared in the 8-7 centuries and certainly weren't started at around 2000BCE
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nit picking.  (Beat him to it!)
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 14 2011,07:59

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,16:55)
 
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 13 2011,13:49)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:32)
     
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 13 2011,08:35)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,19:04)
         
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 12 2011,17:32)
         
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)
You mean mot, not mute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Or possibly "moot".

               
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:34)

                   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You said more than one radioisotope. Remember?

"Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. "

And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The reading comprehension is not strong in this one, is it?  Either that, or the ability to look up "radioisotope" in any convenient dictionary and understand the result.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thats three radioisotopes in that quote. A parent isotope can decay to different daughter or even granddaughter isotopes

To make it easy on you look at these isochron parent to daughter isotope dating techniques. I-Xe, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope. One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter element. Some radioisotopes (including 40K) decay to more than one daughter, but that's irrelevant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


“The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.”  
< http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......th.html >

< http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hee hee hee! You dug up one of the unusual isochron methods!

In the quote from the isochron page at T.O., which is what we are discussing, there is one radioisotope, one daughter isotope, and one stable isotope of the daughter isotope element. You were wrong.

But Pb-Pb isochrons involve many radioisotopes and daughter isotopes and one stable isotope of the daughter isotope, I hear you whine!

I'm way ahead of you. As usual. Back on page 27 I responded to you:

     
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,14:28)
     
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You still don't have the faintest idea of how isochron dating works. When you figure it out, from the links I gave, maybe we can have a discussion.

(In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used. And you haven't a clue from whence samples come).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Note that you said "Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes". Not "A few isochron methods involve taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes".

You were wrong. In general, isochron dating involves one radioisotope, one daughter isotope, and one stable isotope of the daughter element. The T.O. page on isochrons, which the subject of this side discussion, that's the kind of isochrons that are covered.

But I carefully wrote "In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used". Note "...almost all the isochron methods...". I know about Pb-Pb isochrons, which are not at all typical of isochron methods. I was correct. Again.

Wotta maroon!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The following popular isochron parent to daughter elements involve a parent radioisotope decaying to a daughter radioisotope that in turn almost always decays either beta, alpha, Isomeric,electron capture, or fission  radioactivity

K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


{ABE} In the real world, almost all of those daughter isotopes are stable. And several of those methods are not isochron methods.{/ABE} IOW, when you wrote "Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes." you were wrong. And when you quoted T.O. as support for that claim:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
“Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


you compounded your error by failing to realize that the quote refutes rather than supports your claim.

Now you're dancing as hard as you can to avoid admitting error. I find it fascinating that fundies all do that.

ETA: Still waiting for the mathematics of decay rate changes compounding like compound interest. That would be even more fun watching you squirm!
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 14 2011,08:25

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 14 2011,08:59)
Now you're dancing as hard as you can to avoid admitting error. I find it fascinating that fundies all do that.

ETA: Still waiting for the mathematics of decay rate changes compounding like compound interest. That would be even more fun watching you squirm!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 14 2011,08:30

fourass, let me demonstrate how stupid you are.  you are saying that there is no difference between



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1)  your lover slips up and just can't help sucking a strange dick somewhere but insists that you can remain together in a committed relationship
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2)  your lover slips up and sucks 227,000 strange dicks, in a row, without stopping but insists that you can remain together in a committed relationship.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



does that help make it obvious exactly how much horseshit you are full of or should i go on?  answer RB's question are you scared to admit the truth about your lover?
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 14 2011,12:14

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 14 2011,06:30)
fourass, let me demonstrate how stupid you are.  you are saying that there is no difference between



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1)  your lover slips up and just can't help sucking a strange dick somewhere but insists that you can remain together in a committed relationship
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



and



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2)  your lover slips up and sucks 227,000 strange dicks, in a row, without stopping but insists that you can remain together in a committed relationship.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



does that help make it obvious exactly how much horseshit you are full of or should i go on?  answer RB's question are you scared to admit the truth about your lover?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, now you're just getting him all sweaty, 'Ras.  And there's nothing worse than a sweaty muppet.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 14 2011,13:05

Here, forastero, I'll make it simple for you. We know that, in any radiosotope, the number of atoms that decay per unit time is proportional to the number of atoms present. If there are N radioisotope atoms present and "t" is time, then the change in the number of atoms per unit time, dN/dt, is given by:


Where lambda is the decay constant.

If we start counting time from whatever point the process started, and there were N0 atoms at that time, the number of atoms present at time t is:



(see < Radiometric Dating > to see how the second equation is derived from the first).

Now, a moron might say that, since there is exponentiation involved in both this equation and the compound interest equation, then changes in the decay constant lambda will compound. but lambda and time "t" appear in the exponent. So when we solve for "t", the age of the sample:



we see that the relationship between "t" and lambda is hyperbolic, not exponential. A change in lambda results in a inversely proportional change in the calculated age, but if you increase the change in lambda the effect on "t" decreases as the change in lambda increases. A 0.5% change in lambda at t=0 (the best case for you, applying the changed rate throughout the entire process) changes the calculated age of the sample by 0.4975%.

(How we determine N0 is interesting but is outside the scope of this discussion. N and lambda are, of course, measured in the present.)

This equation applies to simple-accumulation methods, such as K-Ar. The more advanced age-diagnostic methods are governed by more complex equations, but the relationship between "t" and lambda is always inversely proportional. For example, the Pb-Pb isochron which is the way we find the total age of the Earth:



which is not solvable analytically, but can be solved using a computer. Note that "t" appears in the exponent multiplied by lambda, so we know that as in the above example "t" is inversely proportional to lambda.
Posted by: noncarborundum on Nov. 14 2011,14:23

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 14 2011,13:05)
Here, forastero, I'll make it simple for you. We know that, in any radiosotope, the number of atoms that decay per unit time is proportional to the number of atoms present. If there are N radioisotope atoms present and "t" is time, then the change in the number of atoms per unit time, dN/dt, is given by:


Where lambda is the decay constant.

If we start counting time from whatever point the process started, and there were N0 atoms at that time, the number of atoms present at time t is:



(see < Radiometric Dating > to see how the second equation is derived from the first).

Now, a moron might say that, since there is exponentiation involved in both this equation and the compound interest equation, then changes in the decay constant lambda will compound. but lambda and time "t" appear in the exponent. So when we solve for "t", the age of the sample:



we see that the relationship between "t" and lambda is hyperbolic, not exponential. A change in lambda results in a inversely proportional change in the calculated age, but if you increase the change in lambda the effect on "t" decreases as the change in lambda increases. A 0.5% change in lambda at t=0 (the best case for you, applying the changed rate throughout the entire process) changes the calculated age of the sample by 0.4975%.

(How we determine N0 is interesting but is outside the scope of this discussion. N and lambda are, of course, measured in the present.)

This equation applies to simple-accumulation methods, such as K-Ar. The more advanced age-diagnostic methods are governed by more complex equations, but the relationship between "t" and lambda is always inversely proportional. For example, the Pb-Pb isochron which is the way we find the total age of the Earth:



which is not solvable analytically, but can be solved using a computer. Note that "t" appears in the exponent multiplied by lambda, so we know that as in the above example "t" is inversely proportional to lambda.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The sound you just heard was that of this post going right over forastero's head.
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 14 2011,15:04

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,15:57)
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 13 2011,15:06)
forastero,

try to grasp the simple concepts first.  In your population equation (that's generous, but we'll call it population), how do you derive your growth rate?

A correct answer to this question will involve A) but not B)


A)  these assumptions are starting points and these factors affect the growth rate

B)  a stand alone number

Thanks for clearing things up.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I just picked a very conservative .5% for sake of argument
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I see you opted for B.  While I'm not surprised, the fact that you are unable to answer this simple questions tells us all we need to know about you.

I'm a nice guy however, and will give you one more chance at appearing to be something other than a complete moron.

Notice that I asked you HOW YOU derived your growth rate.  Notice also that you did not tell us how you derived it.

Please correct this error.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 14 2011,15:08

Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 14 2011,15:23)
 
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 14 2011,13:05)
Here, forastero, I'll make it simple for you. We know that, in any radiosotope, the number of atoms that decay per unit time is proportional to the number of atoms present. If there are N radioisotope atoms present and "t" is time, then the change in the number of atoms per unit time, dN/dt, is given by:


Where lambda is the decay constant.

If we start counting time from whatever point the process started, and there were N0 atoms at that time, the number of atoms present at time t is:



(see < Radiometric Dating > to see how the second equation is derived from the first).

Now, a moron might say that, since there is exponentiation involved in both this equation and the compound interest equation, then changes in the decay constant lambda will compound. but lambda and time "t" appear in the exponent. So when we solve for "t", the age of the sample:



we see that the relationship between "t" and lambda is hyperbolic, not exponential. A change in lambda results in a inversely proportional change in the calculated age, but if you increase the change in lambda the effect on "t" decreases as the change in lambda increases. A 0.5% change in lambda at t=0 (the best case for you, applying the changed rate throughout the entire process) changes the calculated age of the sample by 0.4975%.

(How we determine N0 is interesting but is outside the scope of this discussion. N and lambda are, of course, measured in the present.)

This equation applies to simple-accumulation methods, such as K-Ar. The more advanced age-diagnostic methods are governed by more complex equations, but the relationship between "t" and lambda is always inversely proportional. For example, the Pb-Pb isochron which is the way we find the total age of the Earth:



which is not solvable analytically, but can be solved using a computer. Note that "t" appears in the exponent multiplied by lambda, so we know that as in the above example "t" is inversely proportional to lambda.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The sound you just heard was that of this post going right over forastero's head.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course. He hasn't a prayer.

For fun, let's examine his claim that "The following popular isochron parent to daughter elements involve a parent radioisotope decaying to a daughter radioisotope that in turn almost always decays either beta, alpha, Isomeric,electron capture, or fission  radioactivity

K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U."

Let's list the stable daughter products in his list of "daughter radioisotope(s) that in turn almost always decays".


  • 40Ar (K-Ar and Ar-Ar)
  • 87Sr (Rb-Sr)
  • 143Nd (Sm-Nd)
  • 138Ba (La-Ba)
  • 206Pb, 207Pb (Pb-Pb, which does involve multiple radioisotope parents but the final daughters are stable)
  • 176Hf (Lu-Hf)
  • 187Os (Re-Os)

I don't know of any dating methods, isochron or not, called "U-Pb-He" or "Ne-Ne" or "U-U". There is (U-Th)/He which results in a stable 4He isotope and is not an isochron method. There is cosmogenic exposure dating involving the radioisotope 21Ne, but that's not an isochron method. I suppose there could be U-U disequilibrium dating, but that wouldn't be an isochron method.

The only radioisotope daughter product in his list is U. And it appears that three of the methods in his list are not isochron methods, which is the class of methods under discussion.


Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 14 2011,15:43

Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 14 2011,14:23)
 
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 14 2011,13:05)
Here, forastero, I'll make it simple for you. We know that, in any radiosotope, the number of atoms that decay per unit time is proportional to the number of atoms present. If there are N radioisotope atoms present and "t" is time, then the change in the number of atoms per unit time, dN/dt, is given by:


Where lambda is the decay constant.

If we start counting time from whatever point the process started, and there were N0 atoms at that time, the number of atoms present at time t is:



(see < Radiometric Dating > to see how the second equation is derived from the first).

Now, a moron might say that, since there is exponentiation involved in both this equation and the compound interest equation, then changes in the decay constant lambda will compound. but lambda and time "t" appear in the exponent. So when we solve for "t", the age of the sample:



we see that the relationship between "t" and lambda is hyperbolic, not exponential. A change in lambda results in a inversely proportional change in the calculated age, but if you increase the change in lambda the effect on "t" decreases as the change in lambda increases. A 0.5% change in lambda at t=0 (the best case for you, applying the changed rate throughout the entire process) changes the calculated age of the sample by 0.4975%.

(How we determine N0 is interesting but is outside the scope of this discussion. N and lambda are, of course, measured in the present.)

This equation applies to simple-accumulation methods, such as K-Ar. The more advanced age-diagnostic methods are governed by more complex equations, but the relationship between "t" and lambda is always inversely proportional. For example, the Pb-Pb isochron which is the way we find the total age of the Earth:



which is not solvable analytically, but can be solved using a computer. Note that "t" appears in the exponent multiplied by lambda, so we know that as in the above example "t" is inversely proportional to lambda.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The sound you just heard was that of this post going right over forastero's head.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Give not that which is holy involves logic unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls equations before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 14 2011,21:20

JonF whips out some maths and some of us are left to stir our toes in the dirt. (Hope he doesn't call on me.)

But now forastero-Kong has some shiny new tools with which to approach these questions:

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?  

Does Elvis leave buildings?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 14 2011,21:22

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 14 2011,13:14)

Oh, now you're just getting him all sweaty, 'Ras.  And there's nothing worse than a sweaty muppet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sweaty muppet has not met rule 34 yet but

< http://www.muppetcentral.com/forum......t.23450 >

reads like a sock puppet manual!
Posted by: k.e.. on Nov. 15 2011,08:02

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 15 2011,05:22)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 14 2011,13:14)

Oh, now you're just getting him all sweaty, 'Ras.  And there's nothing worse than a sweaty muppet.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


sweaty muppet has not met rule 34 yet but

< http://www.muppetcentral.com/forum......t.23450 >

reads like a sock puppet manual!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'Ras you are seriously bent.

Sock puppets and creationism go together like Rorschach tests and Jewish Comedians.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 15 2011,09:13

I still want to know where to look for the flood material.  

Interestingly, if forastero were to pick a coal bed between two igneous layers, then we could date that coal bed within a fairly tight range.

What do you think forastero?  What do you estimate the likelihood of us finding a coal bed that can be dated to within 50,000 years of the present time?  What range of error in dating techniques would be required to get that coal bed to your estimate of error?

And don't give me any guff about geological columns and "I didn't say anything about coal beds".  You said it, you claimed it, these are the consequences.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 15 2011,09:26

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2011,10:13)
I still want to know where to look for the flood material.  

Interestingly, if forastero were to pick a coal bed between two igneous layers, then we could date that coal bed within a fairly tight range.

What do you think forastero?  What do you estimate the likelihood of us finding a coal bed that can be dated to within 50,000 years of the present time?  What range of error in dating techniques would be required to get that coal bed to your estimate of error?

And don't give me any guff about geological columns and "I didn't say anything about coal beds".  You said it, you claimed it, these are the consequences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


personally i'd rather see the stranger tell us how many strange dicks we are talking about

then the coalfield example would not be necessary

but if it is, how about the Deep River NC coal seam?
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 15 2011,10:21

I think we're at the point where the muppet disappears for a day or two, then comes back with the next stack of quotemines and unread links.  I don't think we've had the second law of thermodynamics, Walt Brown or the Paluxy footprints yet.

Or he might have reached his quota for his diploma in tard from DrDrD, and be off celebrating in the cafeteria.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 15 2011,10:29

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 14 2011,13:05)
Here, forastero, I'll make it simple for you. We know that, in any radiosotope, the number of atoms that decay per unit time is proportional to the number of atoms present. If there are N radioisotope atoms present and "t" is time, then the change in the number of atoms per unit time, dN/dt, is given by:


Where lambda is the decay constant.

If we start counting time from whatever point the process started, and there were N0 atoms at that time, the number of atoms present at time t is:



(see < Radiometric Dating > to see how the second equation is derived from the first).

Now, a moron might say that, since there is exponentiation involved in both this equation and the compound interest equation, then changes in the decay constant lambda will compound. but lambda and time "t" appear in the exponent. So when we solve for "t", the age of the sample:



we see that the relationship between "t" and lambda is hyperbolic, not exponential. A change in lambda results in a inversely proportional change in the calculated age, but if you increase the change in lambda the effect on "t" decreases as the change in lambda increases. A 0.5% change in lambda at t=0 (the best case for you, applying the changed rate throughout the entire process) changes the calculated age of the sample by 0.4975%.

(How we determine N0 is interesting but is outside the scope of this discussion. N and lambda are, of course, measured in the present.)

This equation applies to simple-accumulation methods, such as K-Ar. The more advanced age-diagnostic methods are governed by more complex equations, but the relationship between "t" and lambda is always inversely proportional. For example, the Pb-Pb isochron which is the way we find the total age of the Earth:



which is not solvable analytically, but can be solved using a computer. Note that "t" appears in the exponent multiplied by lambda, so we know that as in the above example "t" is inversely proportional to lambda.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 15 2011,10:40

dicks, dick?
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 15 2011,10:48

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:29)
[SNIP]

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do...

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So the actual science doesn't matter, just your misunderstanding of Wikipedia? Wow!

I'd have more usefully spent my time fisting a walrus than trying to catch up on the "information" in this thread. Formula waving, forsooth!

Obvious troll is obvious.

Louis
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 15 2011,11:07

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 14 2011,21:20)
JonF whips out some maths and some of us are left to stir our toes in the dirt. (Hope he doesn't call on me.)

But now forastero-Kong has some shiny new tools with which to approach these questions:

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?  

Does Elvis leave buildings?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This uniformitarianism mindset also makes you believe that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

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.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 15 2011,11:08

so, no guess, pussy?
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 15 2011,11:17

I know you've been very busy eating cheezits and whatnot, but have you had time to figure out how you derive the growth rate in your population calculation?

Still waiting.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 15 2011,11:20

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,11:07)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 14 2011,21:20)
JonF whips out some maths and some of us are left to stir our toes in the dirt. (Hope he doesn't call on me.)

But now forastero-Kong has some shiny new tools with which to approach these questions:

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?  

Does Elvis leave buildings?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This uniformitarianism mindset also makes you believe that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

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... look up 'varve'.  

You do realize that there are single geologic formations that take longer to create than your estimated age of the Earth.

You still haven't explained how a single flood can carve a meandering canyon in limestone and then bury it under another 17,000 ft of sediment.

But don't let those little examples of the impossibility of your position discourage you.  

BTW: Which coal bed?  Is it world wide?
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 15 2011,11:32

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,09:07)
This uniformitarianism mindset also makes you believe that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

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-------------------


Disbelief is not evidence, muppet.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 15 2011,11:35

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,11:07)
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-------------------


So call out the fraud with a well researched paper!

Have the courage of your convictions!

Of course, you can't write such a paper as it's obvious that you don't understand what it is you are attempting to critique.

And "critique" is being generous.
Posted by: noncarborundum on Nov. 15 2011,12:04

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,11:07)

This uniformitarianism mindset also makes you believe that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I understand the words "random" and "infinite", this is a simple truth.  The monkey will in fact produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare an infinite number of times, as well as an infinite number of copies of the CWS with one typo, the CWS with two typos, and so on.  This is the nature of infinity.

Do you dispute this, and if so on what grounds?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 15 2011,12:10

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 15 2011,10:21)
I think we're at the point where the muppet disappears for a day or two, then comes back with the next stack of quotemines and unread links.  I don't think we've had the second law of thermodynamics, Walt Brown or the Paluxy footprints yet.

Or he might have reached his quota for his diploma in tard from DrDrD, and be off celebrating in the cafeteria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean that you knew that even your fellow evolutionists find Pb-Pb dating inaccurate

238U/235U Variations in Meteorites: Extant 247Cm and Implications for Pb-Pb Dating
G. A. Brennecka,1* S. Weyer,2† M. Wadhwa,1 P. E. Janney,1 J. Zipfel,3 A. D. Anbar1,4       2010

The 238U/235U isotope ratio has long been considered invariant in meteoritic materials (equal to
137.88). This assumption is a cornerstone of the high-precision lead-lead dates that define the
absolute age of the solar system. Calcium-aluminum–rich inclusions (CAIs) of the Allende meteorite
display variable 238U/235U ratios, ranging between 137.409 T 0.039 and 137.885 T 0.009. This
range implies substantial uncertainties in the ages that were previously determined
by lead-lead dating of CAIs, which may be overestimated by several million years. The correlation
of uranium isotope ratios with proxies for curium/uranium (that is, thorium/uranium and
neodymium/uranium) provides strong evidence that the observed variations of 238U/235U in CAIs
were produced by the decay of extant curium-247 to uranium-235 in the early solar system,
with an initial 247Cm/235U ratio of approximately 1.1 × 10?4 to 2.4 × 10?4.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 15 2011,12:15

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 15 2011,11:17)
I know you've been very busy eating cheezits and whatnot, but have you had time to figure out how you derive the growth rate in your population calculation?

Still waiting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I got the very conservative growth rate from the link that I provided. Again, what growth rate would you prefer?
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 15 2011,12:16

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29)

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained.

Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at < http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html. >  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.  

Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 15 2011,12:16

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:10)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 15 2011,10:21)
I think we're at the point where the muppet disappears for a day or two, then comes back with the next stack of quotemines and unread links.  I don't think we've had the second law of thermodynamics, Walt Brown or the Paluxy footprints yet.

Or he might have reached his quota for his diploma in tard from DrDrD, and be off celebrating in the cafeteria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean that you knew that even your fellow evolutionists find Pb-Pb dating inaccurate

238U/235U Variations in Meteorites: Extant 247Cm and Implications for Pb-Pb Dating
G. A. Brennecka,1* S. Weyer,2† M. Wadhwa,1 P. E. Janney,1 J. Zipfel,3 A. D. Anbar1,4       2010

The 238U/235U isotope ratio has long been considered invariant in meteoritic materials (equal to
137.88). This assumption is a cornerstone of the high-precision lead-lead dates that define the
absolute age of the solar system. Calcium-aluminum–rich inclusions (CAIs) of the Allende meteorite
display variable 238U/235U ratios, ranging between 137.409 T 0.039 and 137.885 T 0.009. This
range implies substantial uncertainties in the ages that were previously determined
by lead-lead dating of CAIs, which may be overestimated by several million years. The correlation
of uranium isotope ratios with proxies for curium/uranium (that is, thorium/uranium and
neodymium/uranium) provides strong evidence that the observed variations of 238U/235U in CAIs
were produced by the decay of extant curium-247 to uranium-235 in the early solar system,
with an initial 247Cm/235U ratio of approximately 1.1 × 10?4 to 2.4 × 10?4.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My emphasis.

"Overestimated by several million years" in this context is approximately what percentage, muppet?

Edit: < here > is the full paper.  Science seems to have left out the part where they say "... and therefore the Earth could be 6000 years old."
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 15 2011,12:18

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,13:10)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 15 2011,10:21)
I think we're at the point where the muppet disappears for a day or two, then comes back with the next stack of quotemines and unread links.  I don't think we've had the second law of thermodynamics, Walt Brown or the Paluxy footprints yet.

Or he might have reached his quota for his diploma in tard from DrDrD, and be off celebrating in the cafeteria.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean that you knew that even your fellow evolutionists find Pb-Pb dating inaccurate

238U/235U Variations in Meteorites: Extant 247Cm and Implications for Pb-Pb Dating
G. A. Brennecka,1* S. Weyer,2† M. Wadhwa,1 P. E. Janney,1 J. Zipfel,3 A. D. Anbar1,4       2010

The 238U/235U isotope ratio has long been considered invariant in meteoritic materials (equal to
137.88). This assumption is a cornerstone of the high-precision lead-lead dates that define the
absolute age of the solar system. Calcium-aluminum–rich inclusions (CAIs) of the Allende meteorite
display variable 238U/235U ratios, ranging between 137.409 T 0.039 and 137.885 T 0.009. This
range implies substantial uncertainties in the ages that were previously determined
by lead-lead dating of CAIs, which may be overestimated by several million years. The correlation
of uranium isotope ratios with proxies for curium/uranium (that is, thorium/uranium and
neodymium/uranium) provides strong evidence that the observed variations of 238U/235U in CAIs
were produced by the decay of extant curium-247 to uranium-235 in the early solar system,
with an initial 247Cm/235U ratio of approximately 1.1 × 10?4 to 2.4 × 10?4.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


pussy!


Posted by: forastero on Nov. 15 2011,12:22

Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 15 2011,12:04)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,11:07)

This uniformitarianism mindset also makes you believe that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I understand the words "random" and "infinite", this is a simple truth.  The monkey will in fact produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare an infinite number of times, as well as an infinite number of copies of the CWS with one typo, the CWS with two typos, and so on.  This is the nature of infinity.

Do you dispute this, and if so on what grounds?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Common sense tells the rational world that its faith based pseudoempericsm
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 15 2011,12:30

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,12:22)
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 15 2011,12:04)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,11:07)

This uniformitarianism mindset also makes you believe that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I understand the words "random" and "infinite", this is a simple truth.  The monkey will in fact produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare an infinite number of times, as well as an infinite number of copies of the CWS with one typo, the CWS with two typos, and so on.  This is the nature of infinity.

Do you dispute this, and if so on what grounds?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Common sense tells the rational world that its faith based pseudoempericsm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mathematics suggests otherwise. But of course, maths is not based upon an a priori conviction that your particular interpretation of your particular holly book is correct. Let's not pretend that you're not the one at odds with reality, and will grab onto anything, no matter how dubious the source to bolster your preconceptions.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 15 2011,12:33

Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 15 2011,12:04)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,11:07)

This uniformitarianism mindset also makes you believe that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I understand the words "random" and "infinite", this is a simple truth.  The monkey will in fact produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare an infinite number of times, as well as an infinite number of copies of the CWS with one typo, the CWS with two typos, and so on.  This is the nature of infinity.

Do you dispute this, and if so on what grounds?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Using forastero as an example, he has been banging away at a keyboard and not one sensible thing has resulted.  :)
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 15 2011,12:44

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,13:22)
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 15 2011,12:04)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,11:07)

This uniformitarianism mindset also makes you believe that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I understand the words "random" and "infinite", this is a simple truth.  The monkey will in fact produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare an infinite number of times, as well as an infinite number of copies of the CWS with one typo, the CWS with two typos, and so on.  This is the nature of infinity.

Do you dispute this, and if so on what grounds?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Common sense tells the rational world that its faith based pseudoempericsm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey stupid, I told you a long time ago that you should just skip all the "science" and go straight to the missionary work.  

BUT it's too late for you to lead by example now.  You don't have any data, you don't have an alternative model, you just have some quotes you don't even understand yourself, and an history of being a giant pussy on this board.  Who is going to want to accept your Savior under those sorts of conditions?  

if i were you I would flounce out and create new sockpuppet.  Or you could try something new and actually answer the question put to you by so many different posters, some in different contexts!  but i won't hold my breath, retarded godbots can't change really
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 15 2011,12:45

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,12:07)
This uniformitarianism mindset also makes you believe that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare...<snip>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


forastero, these are fascinating statements of the sleeve-muttering variety. But I thought we had finished with that phase.

I posed question about your beliefs, specifically about the entailments of your prior statements. If you lack the nerve to respond, just say so and I'll stop asking.

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?

(something clever here).
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 15 2011,12:53

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2011,09:13)
I still want to know where to look for the flood material.  

Interestingly, if forastero were to pick a coal bed between two igneous layers, then we could date that coal bed within a fairly tight range.

What do you think forastero?  What do you estimate the likelihood of us finding a coal bed that can be dated to within 50,000 years of the present time?  What range of error in dating techniques would be required to get that coal bed to your estimate of error?

And don't give me any guff about geological columns and "I didn't say anything about coal beds".  You said it, you claimed it, these are the consequences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I'm hurt.  Forastero skipped right past my question.  sigh... how will I ever go on?

BTW: I still want to know how a global flood can carve a meandering channel in limestone and then deposit 17,000 feet of sediment on top of it.

Shall I add this and the varve question to your outstanding list?  I know you'll explain exactly what exploded to cause the Big Bang any time now.  Oh, and don't forget the cal bed that covers the Earth.  I really want to know about that one.  

Think about it a coal bed that's on the order of 17,000 feet thick and covers the entire Earth.  Talk about being a billionaire.  Just tell me where to look forastero.
Posted by: noncarborundum on Nov. 15 2011,14:25

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,12:22)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 15 2011,12:04)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,11:07)

This uniformitarianism mindset also makes you believe that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I understand the words "random" and "infinite", this is a simple truth.  The monkey will in fact produce the Complete Works of Shakespeare an infinite number of times, as well as an infinite number of copies of the CWS with one typo, the CWS with two typos, and so on.  This is the nature of infinity.

Do you dispute this, and if so on what grounds?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Common sense tells the rational world that its faith based pseudoempericsm
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah, I see.  No particular grounds.  Just another argument from incredulity (or, in this case, perhaps an argument from incoherence).
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 15 2011,14:50

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,17:23)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,12:56)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,12:39)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,11:17)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 13 2011,07:39)
Quote me, liar.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And then a few days later you flipflopped right back to your original assertion for a three count
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See forastero, you are not in a debate.  This is a forum.  It is a place where every comment is permanently placed in a location you can't edit it.  The same, of course, goes for us.

You made a claim.  Back it up with evidence (for once in your life).  Provide the quote or retract your claim.

BTW: What exactly exploded to cause the Big Bang?  And where in the geologic column should we look for the world-wide flood layer?

These questions are consequences of your claims.  You cannot support them.

I conclude that you are pretty much worthless as comes to research.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's a hint, just look at the billions of tons of coal and petroleo

Hey ogre so what is your big bang theory?
And when you gonna list all these so called geologic columns you keep harping on?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Really forastero?  There is a single coal formation that covers the entire world.  Really?  Which one?  What's the name of it and IS IT PRESENT IN ALL 26 LOCATIONS WITH A COMPLETE FOSSIL RECORD?

You see, your claim is that a flood existed.  Your claim requires that there be ONE formation of sediment (which it barely is, because of the metamorphic properties that must happen to produce coal).  

So, which coal formation is it.  For example: this website < http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/DMR3.......n.shtml >

lists a minimum of 42 coal beds (just in one are of VA) (I stopped counting there) that are interspersed with limestone, shales, and sandstones.  

So is it your contention that all coal was formed in the flood?  That is obviously impossible to square with reality.

So which coal bed should we be looking at?

Why do you think it is a coal bed?  
Considering the amount of sediment of all kinds that would result, why not a sandstone?  Obviously siltstones are right out.

I know you'll get right on that, since your previous answer was so detailed.  BTW: How do you know or is that just a Wild-Assed Guess from someone with no knowledge of geology, coal formation, or correlation?

You know my Big Bang theory.  It's the same as what modern cosmologists have come up with.  What's yours... you made a claim that you say is supported by scientists that something actually exploded to cause the big bang, what was it?  C4?  A mini-nuke?  antimatter?  quark-gluon plasma?  what?  And how do you know?

The geologic columns I keep harping on the ones where you need to do your work to support your claims.  It should be very easy, I've given you several hints, or do you just need someone to do your work for you?  Because I'm not interested.

Comon, 26 geologic columns, spread all over the world, contain complete sequences from precambrian to tertiary.  First, I believe you claimed that was wrong... so it should be easy to prove my claim is wrong.  Just find out if they exist or not.
Second, your claim that a great flood that buried the entire Earth existed would result in a single layer of sediment that should be visible all over the world (we do have one example of a layer that appears all over the world).  Where is it?  What layer and how do you know?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, you are not listing any of these so called 26 geologic columns. Nor are you mentioning your Big Bang theory and probably because you found that the Big Bang bigwigs call it an explosion of some sort.

As for the Flood, your own scriptures reveal some Biblical stratigraphy of the Carboniferous ecology. I mean, we have a veritable paradise with exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism; but that was also being interrupted by some sort of mysteriously and perhaps sinful perturbations. Then all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world.

Today, we call this the "Carboniferous rainforest collapse" where huge amounts of  hydrocarboned fossil-fuels were produced via hydrothermally flooded organic matter. Hmm come to think about it, a microcosm of the event could be the horrendous pyrolysis witnessed at the bottom of the Twin tower on 9/11
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 15 2011,14:56

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29)

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained.

Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at < http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html. >  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.  

Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground."

Your link dont work but if these fossil bearing rocks must contain more than one type of the very few so called stable isotopes of a radioisotope, then isochron dating must be very rare.  Like I said said, almost all radioisotope daughters are known to be unstable. Heck, even the few so called stable isotpes in isochron dating are known to be stable but are then referred to as some anomalous deviation.

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
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 15 2011,15:19

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2011,12:53)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2011,09:13)
I still want to know where to look for the flood material.  

Interestingly, if forastero were to pick a coal bed between two igneous layers, then we could date that coal bed within a fairly tight range.

What do you think forastero?  What do you estimate the likelihood of us finding a coal bed that can be dated to within 50,000 years of the present time?  What range of error in dating techniques would be required to get that coal bed to your estimate of error?

And don't give me any guff about geological columns and "I didn't say anything about coal beds".  You said it, you claimed it, these are the consequences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I'm hurt.  Forastero skipped right past my question.  sigh... how will I ever go on?

BTW: I still want to know how a global flood can carve a meandering channel in limestone and then deposit 17,000 feet of sediment on top of it.

Shall I add this and the varve question to your outstanding list?  I know you'll explain exactly what exploded to cause the Big Bang any time now.  Oh, and don't forget the cal bed that covers the Earth.  I really want to know about that one.  

Think about it a coal bed that's on the order of 17,000 feet thick and covers the entire Earth.  Talk about being a billionaire.  Just tell me where to look forastero.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The same the Flood piled up over 2200 feet in Carboniferous Texas


THE MISSISSIPPIAN BARNETT FORMATION:
A SOURCE-ROCK, SEAL, AND RESERVOIR PRODUCED BY EARLY CARBONIFEROUS FLOODING OF THE TEXAS CRATON

< http://www.beg.utexas.edu/resprog....ter.pdf >
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 15 2011,15:26

Oops I made a typo above--it should say Unstable as I capitalized below

Your link dont work but if these fossil bearing rocks must contain more than one type of the very few so called stable isotopes of a radioisotope, then isochron dating must be very rare.  Like I said said, almost all radioisotope daughters are known to be unstable. Heck, even the few so called stable isotpes in isochron dating are often known to be UNstable but are then referred to as some anomalous deviation.
Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 15 2011,15:40

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:56)
 
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29)

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained.

Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at < http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html. >  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.  

Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground."


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, dear, cut and paste IDiot strikes again!  Ar-40 is not cosmogenic.  From the very page which your quoted material is from.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your link dont work

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

because the software added the period at the end of the sentence to the link.  Not much of a problem-solver, are you?


[snip]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plus you are still ignoring the following:

Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32
Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways."

Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think a person who can't even tell if isotopes are stable or not and can't handle "formula-waving" are incapable of having a discussion of a technical paper that would require a critical appraisal of petrography.  The key concept which I am sure you never heard of is fractionation.
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 15 2011,15:48

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,12:15)
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 15 2011,11:17)
I know you've been very busy eating cheezits and whatnot, but have you had time to figure out how you derive the growth rate in your population calculation?

Still waiting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I got the very conservative growth rate from the link that I provided. Again, what growth rate would you prefer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please tell us how you derived your growth rate.  I'll keep asking as long as you keep not answering.  I don't have a preferred growth rate; I'm merely asking how you derived yours.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 15 2011,15:51

this sombitch aint got enough sense to be ashamed of himself
Posted by: nmgirl on Nov. 15 2011,16:55

We didn't used to use the term Carboniferous in the United States.  We used Mississipian (older) and Pennsylvanian (younger).  These rocks are between 359 to 249 million years old.  In the midcontinent, including North Texas,  the Mississipian is mostly shallow water limestone and the Pennsylvanian is mostly a near shore, riverine  environment.  I'm sure that sometime during the millions of years of the Pennsylvanian the rivers probably flooded a few times.  How does that indicate a global flood?
Posted by: khan on Nov. 15 2011,17:47

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:50)
Again, you are not listing any of these so called 26 geologic columns. Nor are you mentioning your Big Bang theory and probably because you found that the Big Bang bigwigs call it an explosion of some sort.

As for the Flood, your own scriptures reveal some Biblical stratigraphy of the Carboniferous ecology. I mean, we have a veritable paradise with exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism; but that was also being interrupted by some sort of mysteriously and perhaps sinful perturbations. Then all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world.

Today, we call this the "Carboniferous rainforest collapse" where huge amounts of  hydrocarboned fossil-fuels were produced via hydrothermally flooded organic matter. Hmm come to think about it, a microcosm of the event could be the horrendous pyrolysis witnessed at the bottom of the Twin tower on 9/11
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh crap, a Troofer?
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 15 2011,17:54

Quote (khan @ Nov. 15 2011,15:47)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:50)
Again, you are not listing any of these so called 26 geologic columns. Nor are you mentioning your Big Bang theory and probably because you found that the Big Bang bigwigs call it an explosion of some sort.

As for the Flood, your own scriptures reveal some Biblical stratigraphy of the Carboniferous ecology. I mean, we have a veritable paradise with exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism; but that was also being interrupted by some sort of mysteriously and perhaps sinful perturbations. Then all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world.

Today, we call this the "Carboniferous rainforest collapse" where huge amounts of  hydrocarboned fossil-fuels were produced via hydrothermally flooded organic matter. Hmm come to think about it, a microcosm of the event could be the horrendous pyrolysis witnessed at the bottom of the Twin tower on 9/11
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh crap, a Troofer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hardly surprising.  Crank magnetism.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 15 2011,18:21

trooferism maybe hell who knows but i think it might be more like regular old muppet says stupid shit in a thread

this idiot has yet to begin dropping the real stupid on us.  so far it just wants to dance

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....related >
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 15 2011,18:35

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:50)
As for the Flood, your own scriptures reveal some Biblical stratigraphy of the Carboniferous ecology. I mean, we have a veritable paradise with exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism; but that was also being interrupted by some sort of mysteriously and perhaps sinful perturbations. Then all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world.

Today, we call this the "Carboniferous rainforest collapse" where huge amounts of  hydrocarboned fossil-fuels were produced via hydrothermally flooded organic matter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


forasmonaural:

Within the context of contemporary geology, "the Carboniferous" designates a geological era that had its onset ~359 million years ago, an interval that, for you, was 17,950x the age of the earth. Stated another way, it is your belief that the earth existed only during the last 1/17,950th (the last 0.00557%) of that period. (You live within an incredibly cramped history. I've never understood why anyone finds that appealing.)

The Carboniferous of actual geology continued for 60 million years - for you, 3,000x the entire span of earth's history. Events such as the "Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse" can only be understood with reference to Carboniferous itself, and have no meaning outside the network of facts and theory from which the standard geological chronology has been composed.

We have already established that it is your belief that no such era, nor any other era or epoch described by contemporary geology, ever transpired. Rather, you refer to ante- and post-diluvian "ecozones" - yet can't bring yourself to report your guess regarding just when the event relative to which these zones were "ante- " and "post-" occurred. We do know that it is your belief that that the age of the earth is less than 20,000 years. It follows that your use of the term "Carboniferous" has no relationship to that term as used within a scientific context, and instead has a private, idiosyncratic meaning that bears no relationship to "Carboniferous" as understood within Geology.

It follows, once again, that you are claiming in support your your bizarre geochronology events you believe never to have occurred. That seems to be a habit. Of course, such a claim is at once unintelligible, self-contradictory, and patently dishonest, as you are offering assertions that unquestionably you believe to be false ("such and such occurred during the Carboniferous") in support of your view.

Better stick with easier questions. Such as:

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?

Unless you haven't the courage to muster a relevant response. Just let me know that is the case, and I'll stop embarrassing you with the question.

ETA: A juicier slice of Kong.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 15 2011,18:44

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 15 2011,19:35)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:50)
Today, we call this the "Carboniferous rainforest collapse" where huge amounts of  hydrocarboned fossil-fuels were produced via hydrothermally flooded organic matter.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


forasmonaural:

Within the context of contemporary geology, "the Carboniferous" designates a geological era that had its onset ~359 million years ago, an interval that, for you, was 17,950x the age of the earth. Stated another way, it is your belief that the earth existed only during the last 1/17,950th (the last 0.00557%) of that period. (You live within an incredibly cramped history. I've never understood why anyone finds that appealing.)

The Carboniferous of actual geology continued for 60 million years - for you, 3,000x the entire span of earth's history. Events such as the "Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse" can only be understood with reference to Carboniferous itself, and have no meaning outside the network of facts and theory from which the standard geological chronology has been composed.

We have already established that it is your belief that no such era, nor any other era or epoch described by contemporary geology, ever transpired. Rather, you refer to ante- and post-diluvian "ecozones" - yet can't bring yourself to report your guess regarding just when the event relative to which these zones were "ante- " and "post-" occurred. We do know that it is your belief that that the age of the earth is less than 20,000 years. It follows that your use of the term "Carboniferous" has no relationship to that term as used within a scientific context, and instead has a private, idiosyncratic meaning that bears no relationship to "Carboniferous" as understood within Geology.

It follows, once again, that you are claiming in support your your bizarre geochronology events you believe never to have occurred. That seems to be a habit. Of course, such a claim is at once unintelligible, self-contradictory, and patently dishonest, as you are offering assertions that unquestionably you believe to be false ("such and such occurred during the Carboniferous") in support of your view.

Better stick with easier questions. Such as:

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?

Unless you haven't the courage to muster a relevant response. Just let me know that is the case, and I'll stop embarrassing you with the question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 15 2011,18:45

BTW, WTC 1 was 1368 feet tall minus the antenna spire.

In fosterstereo's world, it is rational to cling to the belief that WTC 1 was actually 0.006 feet tall.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 15 2011,19:02

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 15 2011,16:45)
BTW, WTC 1 was 1368 tall minus the antenna spire.

In fosterstereo's world, it is rational to cling to the belief that WTC 1 was actually 0.006 feet tall.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... and that it was destroyed about twenty minutes ago.
Posted by: noncarborundum on Nov. 15 2011,21:34

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 15 2011,19:02)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 15 2011,16:45)
BTW, WTC 1 was 1368 tall minus the antenna spire.

In fosterstereo's world, it is rational to cling to the belief that WTC 1 was actually 0.006 feet tall.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... and that it was destroyed about twenty minutes ago.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... by 44 millionths of a hijacker in 88 ten-millionths of a jetliner.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 15 2011,21:39

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,15:40)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:56)
   
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29)

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained.

Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at < http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html. >  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.  

Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground."


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, dear, cut and paste IDiot strikes again!  Ar-40 is not cosmogenic.  From the very page which your quoted material is from.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your link dont work

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

because the software added the period at the end of the sentence to the link.  Not much of a problem-solver, are you?


[snip]



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plus you are still ignoring the following:

Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32
Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways."

Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think a person who can't even tell if isotopes are stable or not and can't handle "formula-waving" are incapable of having a discussion of a technical paper that would require a critical appraisal of petrography.  The key concept which I am sure you never heard of is fractionation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was referring to the other 90% of Argon isotopes, which are radioactive, because I had been reading on the more popular Ar40/39Ar isochron; which btw also involves two radioisotopes 39K and 39Ar ( made by cosmic rays from 40Ar).  
< http://www.ees.nmt.edu/outside....ml#Prin >

Oh and did you know that cosmic rays also produce 39K, 40K, 33Ar, 36Ar, 37Ar, 38Ar, 39Ar, and 41Ar, etc.. etc….  and I wouldn’t be surprised if the mysterious excesses of Ar40 was actually via cosmic rays too
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 15 2011,21:41

I wouldn't be surprised if your lover had sucked 227000 strange dicks but still thinks you can work it out!

Pussy!

why would you run away from reciprocating bill's question?  unless you are scared?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 15 2011,21:44

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2011,09:13)
I still want to know where to look for the flood material.  

Interestingly, if forastero were to pick a coal bed between two igneous layers, then we could date that coal bed within a fairly tight range.

What do you think forastero?  What do you estimate the likelihood of us finding a coal bed that can be dated to within 50,000 years of the present time?  What range of error in dating techniques would be required to get that coal bed to your estimate of error?

And don't give me any guff about geological columns and "I didn't say anything about coal beds".  You said it, you claimed it, these are the consequences.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Most, if not all Fossil fuels contain c14 so yeah
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 15 2011,22:02

Quote (khan @ Nov. 15 2011,17:47)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:50)
Again, you are not listing any of these so called 26 geologic columns. Nor are you mentioning your Big Bang theory and probably because you found that the Big Bang bigwigs call it an explosion of some sort.

As for the Flood, your own scriptures reveal some Biblical stratigraphy of the Carboniferous ecology. I mean, we have a veritable paradise with exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism; but that was also being interrupted by some sort of mysteriously and perhaps sinful perturbations. Then all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world.

Today, we call this the "Carboniferous rainforest collapse" where huge amounts of  hydrocarboned fossil-fuels were produced via hydrothermally flooded organic matter. Hmm come to think about it, a microcosm of the event could be the horrendous pyrolysis witnessed at the bottom of the Twin tower on 9/11
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh crap, a Troofer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, if you had took the time to read up on the word pyrolysis, you'd have understood that it can explain the molten metals and heat without the use of micronukes (popular with truthers).
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 15 2011,22:36

Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 14 2011,02:21)
Unfortunately the Table of Nations was written in the seventh century BCE as a post-hoc explanation of the nations of the time. A good clue that this section was written at this time is that while some of the nations mentioned only recently appeared in the 8-7 centuries and certainly weren't started at around 2000BCE
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the Table of Nations descended from Ham, Japheth, and Shem < http://ldolphin.org/ntable.....le.html >

Btw, read these quotes from the great Biblical archaeologists"

Sir Frederic Kenyon mentions, "The evidence of archaeology has been to re-establish the authority of the Old Testament, and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting."

William F. Albright (a renowned archaeologist) says, "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th and 19th centuries, certain phases which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.

"Millar Burrows of Yale states, "On the whole, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record.

"Joseph Free confirms that while thumbing through the book of Genesis, he mentally noted that each of the 50 chapters are either illuminated or confirmed by some archaeological discovery, and that this would be true for most of the remaining chapters of the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament.Scientific explorer

Edward Robinson. identified the location or ruins of literally hundreds of biblical towns palaces and monuments of the very kings recorded in the Scriptures. Some even contained accounts of military campaigns that matched the Bible’s as well as carvings depicting the actual battles. (See "The Mighty Assyrian Empire Emerges From the Dust,")

Nelson Glueck (a Jewish Reformed scholar and archaeologist) probably gives us the greatest support for the historicity of the Bible when he states, "To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 15 2011,22:36



or



??????????????????????
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 15 2011,23:08

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,23:02)
Actually, if you had took the time to read up on the word pyrolysis, you'd have understood that it can explain the molten metals and heat without the use of micronukes (popular with truthers).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How fascinating (yawn) (glances at watch).

Oh, Hey fistarooster:

1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth do NOT account for the entirety of the 227,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?

Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old?  By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 110,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 22,700x older than your wishful fiction?

Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go.

2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 22,700x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?

The baby Jesus wants you to tell the truth.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 16 2011,06:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
"To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



All that's left then is proof of Mary's virginity and the historicity of the gospel's gallery of persons. The possibility of differing views on what constitute 'proper understanding' may of course be assumed non existent. Things become much clearer then.



ETA: typo fix.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 16 2011,08:27

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:50)
Again, you are not listing any of these so called 26 geologic columns. Nor are you mentioning your Big Bang theory and probably because you found that the Big Bang bigwigs call it an explosion of some sort.

As for the Flood, your own scriptures reveal some Biblical stratigraphy of the Carboniferous ecology. I mean, we have a veritable paradise with exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism; but that was also being interrupted by some sort of mysteriously and perhaps sinful perturbations. Then all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world.

Today, we call this the "Carboniferous rainforest collapse" where huge amounts of  hydrocarboned fossil-fuels were produced via hydrothermally flooded organic matter. Hmm come to think about it, a microcosm of the event could be the horrendous pyrolysis witnessed at the bottom of the Twin tower on 9/11
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) It's not my job to do your work for you.  You want to create positive evidence, then do so.  It should be trivial for you to prove me wrong, if indeed these 26 locations with complete geologic columns from precambrian to present exist.  All you have to do is show that they don't (they do, but you don't know that, which is hilarious to me).

2) YOU claimed that the Big Bang was an explosion.  You say that many scientists agree with you.  It should be trivial then for you to tell me what exploded.  Please do so and quit trying to pin this on me.  It's YOUR claim, you support it (or admit that you can't).

3) They are not my scriptures.  

4)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

citation please

5)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



citation please

please DEFINE "Sudden"  1 year?  100,000 years?  42 million years?

And we're back to the Cambrian explosion again.  You've already admitted that these things occurred many, many times.  So, now, where, EXACTLY should I be looking for the flood strata?

Here's an interesting clue... in what era do the largest minable coal seams in the US belong?

So are you claiming that there is now coal at the bottom of the World Trade Center?

LOL the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 16 2011,08:31

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:19)
The same the Flood piled up over 2200 feet in Carboniferous Texas


THE MISSISSIPPIAN BARNETT FORMATION:
A SOURCE-ROCK, SEAL, AND RESERVOIR PRODUCED BY EARLY CARBONIFEROUS FLOODING OF THE TEXAS CRATON

< http://www.beg.utexas.edu/resprog....ter.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, 2200 = 17,000?

So, are you claiming here that the strata that is the flood is from the carboniferous?

So, we should start looking for 17,000 feet worth of coal somewhere in the carboniferous period?

While, we're talking, please discuss the Green River Formation and the annual layers that result in 6 million years of history in that one formation.

I'd like to know if that is a pre-flood, flood, or post-flood strata.

Thanks
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 16 2011,08:42

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,22:36)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 14 2011,02:21)
Unfortunately the Table of Nations was written in the seventh century BCE as a post-hoc explanation of the nations of the time. A good clue that this section was written at this time is that while some of the nations mentioned only recently appeared in the 8-7 centuries and certainly weren't started at around 2000BCE
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is the Table of Nations descended from Ham, Japheth, and Shem < http://ldolphin.org/ntable.....le.html >

Btw, read these quotes from the great Biblical archaeologists"

Sir Frederic Kenyon mentions, "The evidence of archaeology has been to re-establish the authority of the Old Testament, and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting."

William F. Albright (a renowned archaeologist) says, "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th and 19th centuries, certain phases which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.

"Millar Burrows of Yale states, "On the whole, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record.

"Joseph Free confirms that while thumbing through the book of Genesis, he mentally noted that each of the 50 chapters are either illuminated or confirmed by some archaeological discovery, and that this would be true for most of the remaining chapters of the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament.Scientific explorer

Edward Robinson. identified the location or ruins of literally hundreds of biblical towns palaces and monuments of the very kings recorded in the Scriptures. Some even contained accounts of military campaigns that matched the Bible’s as well as carvings depicting the actual battles. (See "The Mighty Assyrian Empire Emerges From the Dust,")

Nelson Glueck (a Jewish Reformed scholar and archaeologist) probably gives us the greatest support for the historicity of the Bible when he states, "To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, what you are saying here is that the movie "Titanic" was exactly 100% historically correct...

because the Titanic did, indeed, exist.  Got that thanks.

Perhaps, you should look up the genre "historical fiction" and apply that to your discussion.  Another good one would be "myth".  I mean, Athens exists right?  So there, incontrovertible proof that Zeus exists.

Argument... FAIL
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 16 2011,10:00

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,22:39)
 
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,15:40)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:56)
     
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)
       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29)

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained.

Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at < http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html. >  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.  

Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground."


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, dear, cut and paste IDiot strikes again!  Ar-40 is not cosmogenic.  From the very page which your quoted material is from.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your link dont work

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

because the software added the period at the end of the sentence to the link.  Not much of a problem-solver, are you?


[snip]

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plus you are still ignoring the following:

Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32
Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways."

Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think a person who can't even tell if isotopes are stable or not and can't handle "formula-waving" are incapable of having a discussion of a technical paper that would require a critical appraisal of petrography.  The key concept which I am sure you never heard of is fractionation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was referring to the other 90% of Argon isotopes, which are radioactive, because I had been reading on the more popular Ar40/39Ar isochron; which btw also involves two radioisotopes 39K and 39Ar ( made by cosmic rays from 40Ar).  
< http://www.ees.nmt.edu/outside....ml#Prin >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you read the links I provided long ago, you would understand how the Ar-Ar method (which is another atypical isochron method, and seldom considered as an isochron method) compensates for this.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh and did you know that cosmic rays also produce 39K, 40K, 33Ar, 36Ar, 37Ar, 38Ar, 39Ar, and 41Ar, etc.. etc….  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fascinating. Most people that frantically Google to try to find information about dating at least come up with facts, even if those facts belie creationism.

You, OTOH, come up with lies. Where are you getting this crap from?

Right off the top of my head I can tell you that 40K is not cosmogenic. The other isotopes you mention, cosmogenic or not, are not relevant.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and I wouldn’t be surprised if the mysterious excesses of Ar40 was actually via cosmic rays too
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reality doesn't care what surprises you. 40Ar is not cosmogenic. The fact that so many K-Ar dates agree with other methods that are not sensitive to the initial amount of daughter isotope, and studies of modern-day lavas, proves that "excess argon" in quantities sufficient to be significant is a rare phenomenon.

We have a claim that isochron methods involve multiple radioisotopes... false except for Pb-Pb, which is a special case. We have a claim that the daughter products used in 99% of isochron methods are themselves unstable... false.  Now a claim that parent and daughter isotopes used in isochron dating are cosmogenic... false.

You just keep on going and going, don't you?
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 16 2011,10:09

oh i am sure he has plenty more where that came from!  anything to avoid answering RB's question!
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 16 2011,10:13

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:56)
 
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29)

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained.

Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at < http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html. >  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.  

Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground."

Your link dont work but if these fossil bearing rocks must contain more than one type of the very few so called stable isotopes of a radioisotope, then isochron dating must be very rare.  Like I said said, almost all radioisotope daughters are known to be unstable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what you said said was wrong.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Heck, even the few so called stable isotpes in isochron dating are known to be stable but are then referred to as some anomalous deviation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Such as what, and what references say this?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plus you are still ignoring the following:

Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32
Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And those independent age determinations almost always result in confirming the isochron age. E.g. < Radiometric Ages of Some Early Archean and Related Rocks of the North Atlantic Craton > and < Radiometeric Dating Does Work! >.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You still haven't figured out how sedimentary layers are dated. Repeating myself from page 27:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well its not usually your so called stable alpha decaying isotopes.  Anyway though please do finally teach us why you think the radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks is so accurate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. After you read my references and figure out what's going on.

Here's a hint. If sedimentary layer B is above igneous layer A which is 100 million years old and layer B is also below igneous layer C which is 90 million years old, and there's no signs of disturbance after deposition or solidification, how old is layer B?

And if igneous layer D cuts through all layers A and B, obviously by seeping into cracks and then solidifying, but doesn't cut through layer C and dates to 95 million years old, how old is layer B?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 16 2011,10:35

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2011,08:27)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:50)
Again, you are not listing any of these so called 26 geologic columns. Nor are you mentioning your Big Bang theory and probably because you found that the Big Bang bigwigs call it an explosion of some sort.

As for the Flood, your own scriptures reveal some Biblical stratigraphy of the Carboniferous ecology. I mean, we have a veritable paradise with exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism; but that was also being interrupted by some sort of mysteriously and perhaps sinful perturbations. Then all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world.

Today, we call this the "Carboniferous rainforest collapse" where huge amounts of  hydrocarboned fossil-fuels were produced via hydrothermally flooded organic matter. Hmm come to think about it, a microcosm of the event could be the horrendous pyrolysis witnessed at the bottom of the Twin tower on 9/11
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) It's not my job to do your work for you.  You want to create positive evidence, then do so.  It should be trivial for you to prove me wrong, if indeed these 26 locations with complete geologic columns from precambrian to present exist.  All you have to do is show that they don't (they do, but you don't know that, which is hilarious to me).

2) YOU claimed that the Big Bang was an explosion.  You say that many scientists agree with you.  It should be trivial then for you to tell me what exploded.  Please do so and quit trying to pin this on me.  It's YOUR claim, you support it (or admit that you can't).

3) They are not my scriptures.  

4)  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

citation please

5)  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



citation please

please DEFINE "Sudden"  1 year?  100,000 years?  42 million years?

And we're back to the Cambrian explosion again.  You've already admitted that these things occurred many, many times.  So, now, where, EXACTLY should I be looking for the flood strata?

Here's an interesting clue... in what era do the largest minable coal seams in the US belong?

So are you claiming that there is now coal at the bottom of the World Trade Center?

LOL the gift that keeps on giving.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for encouraging me to uncover any facts from your scriptures myself. Ah here are some lines to read between. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....iferous >

The map in the above link shows the the great Carboniferous coalfields of the U.S. quite well

...but for those actually interested in science, I'd suggest  Googling Carboniferous and any of the key words that I mentioned and you find I speak the truth but the following has quite a bit of it

As for the WTC, I was referring to the molten and carbonated balls of what-not
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 16 2011,10:42

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,10:35)
Thank you for encouraging me to uncover any facts from your scriptures myself. Ah here are some lines to read between. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......iferous >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But why would you bother reading that when the very first line talks about millions of years, and you flatly deny that the earth is in fact millions of years old.

If the first line is wrong, according to you, what value can the rest possibly have?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 16 2011,10:44

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:00)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,22:39)
 
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,15:40)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:56)
       
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)
       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29)

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained.

Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at < http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html. >  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.  

Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground."


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, dear, cut and paste IDiot strikes again!  Ar-40 is not cosmogenic.  From the very page which your quoted material is from.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your link dont work

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

because the software added the period at the end of the sentence to the link.  Not much of a problem-solver, are you?


[snip]

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plus you are still ignoring the following:

Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32
Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways."

Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think a person who can't even tell if isotopes are stable or not and can't handle "formula-waving" are incapable of having a discussion of a technical paper that would require a critical appraisal of petrography.  The key concept which I am sure you never heard of is fractionation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was referring to the other 90% of Argon isotopes, which are radioactive, because I had been reading on the more popular Ar40/39Ar isochron; which btw also involves two radioisotopes 39K and 39Ar ( made by cosmic rays from 40Ar).  
< http://www.ees.nmt.edu/outside....ml#Prin >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you read the links I provided long ago, you would understand how the Ar-Ar method (which is another atypical isochron method, and seldom considered as an isochron method) compensates for this.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh and did you know that cosmic rays also produce 39K, 40K, 33Ar, 36Ar, 37Ar, 38Ar, 39Ar, and 41Ar, etc.. etc….  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fascinating. Most people that frantically Google to try to find information about dating at least come up with facts, even if those facts belie creationism.

You, OTOH, come up with lies. Where are you getting this crap from?

Right off the top of my head I can tell you that 40K is not cosmogenic. The other isotopes you mention, cosmogenic or not, are not relevant.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and I wouldn’t be surprised if the mysterious excesses of Ar40 was actually via cosmic rays too
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reality doesn't care what surprises you. 40Ar is not cosmogenic. The fact that so many K-Ar dates agree with other methods that are not sensitive to the initial amount of daughter isotope, and studies of modern-day lavas, proves that "excess argon" in quantities sufficient to be significant is a rare phenomenon.

We have a claim that isochron methods involve multiple radioisotopes... false except for Pb-Pb, which is a special case. We have a claim that the daughter products used in 99% of isochron methods are themselves unstable... false.  Now a claim that parent and daughter isotopes used in isochron dating are cosmogenic... false.

You just keep on going and going, don't you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh so my isochrons are atypical. Again, the A-A isochron that I listed is now more popular than yours.

Oh and go to google and do this: " cosmogenic 40k "
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 16 2011,10:47

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 16 2011,10:42)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,10:35)
Thank you for encouraging me to uncover any facts from your scriptures myself. Ah here are some lines to read between. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......iferous >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But why would you bother reading that when the very first line talks about millions of years, and you flatly deny that the earth is in fact millions of years old.

If the first line is wrong, according to you, what value can the rest possibly have?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because when the Nazis controlled and manipulated  science and art and food, etc... etc..., people still wanted to live
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 16 2011,11:01

forastero, you do understand that after a time your non-response itself becomes a response, shouted from mount Ararat: "I HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA HOW TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION."

Which, both for me and other interested readers, accomplishes as much as any answer you can supply. Given this non-answer/answer, the question indicts your position, and your previous sciencey lip service, as empty babbling. You might want to try to control that impression by actually supplying a relevant response. Otherwise, I've accomplished a lot of what I set out to accomplish, which anyone can see.

(No sleeve-muttering, please).
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 16 2011,11:06

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,08:44)
Oh and go to google and do this: " cosmogenic 40k "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What does this have to do with argon?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 16 2011,11:09

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:13)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:56)
   
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29)

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained.

Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at < http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html. >  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.  

Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground."

Your link dont work but if these fossil bearing rocks must contain more than one type of the very few so called stable isotopes of a radioisotope, then isochron dating must be very rare.  Like I said said, almost all radioisotope daughters are known to be unstable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what you said said was wrong.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Heck, even the few so called stable isotpes in isochron dating are known to be stable but are then referred to as some anomalous deviation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Such as what, and what references say this?

 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Most Ar isotope decay either alpha or beta radioactivity
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......f_argon >

Most  Sr isotopes decay beta, alpha, or electron capture radioactivity
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium >  

Most Nd isotopes  decay beta radioactivity
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......odymium >

Most Ba isotopes  decay beta or Isomeric radioactivity
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._barium >

Most Hf isotopes that almost always decays beta, alpha, Isomeric, or electron capture  radioactivity
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......hafnium >

Most Ne isotopes decay beta  radioactivity
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......of_neon >

Most Os isotopes decay beta, alpha, Isomeric, or electron capture  radioactivity
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._osmium >

Most U isotopes decay beta or fission  radioactivity
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......uranium >

Oh and you can also see that some of the isotopes that correspond to the so called stable isotopes actually decay
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 16 2011,11:09

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,10:47)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 16 2011,10:42)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,10:35)
Thank you for encouraging me to uncover any facts from your scriptures myself. Ah here are some lines to read between. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......iferous >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But why would you bother reading that when the very first line talks about millions of years, and you flatly deny that the earth is in fact millions of years old.

If the first line is wrong, according to you, what value can the rest possibly have?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because when the Nazis controlled and manipulated  science and art and food, etc... etc..., people still wanted to live
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look, why don't you just tell me that Jesus loves me and call an end to this?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 16 2011,11:10

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,11:09)
Oh and you can also see that some of the isotopes that correspond to the so called stable isotopes actually decay
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The great thing about Wikipedia is that you can correct any errors yourself.

Why don't you go and do that? If you can support your arguments then the edits will remain.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 16 2011,11:21

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:13)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plus you are still ignoring the following:

Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32
Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And those independent age determinations almost always result in confirming the isochron age. E.g. < Radiometric Ages of Some Early Archean and Related Rocks of the North Atlantic Craton > and < Radiometeric Dating Does Work! >.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You still haven't figured out how sedimentary layers are dated. Repeating myself from page 27:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well its not usually your so called stable alpha decaying isotopes.  Anyway though please do finally teach us why you think the radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks is so accurate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. After you read my references and figure out what's going on.

Here's a hint. If sedimentary layer B is above igneous layer A which is 100 million years old and layer B is also below igneous layer C which is 90 million years old, and there's no signs of disturbance after deposition or solidification, how old is layer B?

And if igneous layer D cuts through all layers A and B, obviously by seeping into cracks and then solidifying, but doesn't cut through layer C and dates to 95 million years old, how old is layer B?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All you are doing is "saying" the sedimentary rocks are uncontaminated and dated accurately, which doesnt make it so. Do you at least agree that sedimentary rocks would have a lot more mixing and isotope contamination than igneous rocks?


What references did you ever give on Sedimentary isochrons?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 16 2011,11:29

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 14 2011,15:08)
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 14 2011,15:23)
 
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 14 2011,13:05)
Here, forastero, I'll make it simple for you. We know that, in any radiosotope, the number of atoms that decay per unit time is proportional to the number of atoms present. If there are N radioisotope atoms present and "t" is time, then the change in the number of atoms per unit time, dN/dt, is given by:


Where lambda is the decay constant.

If we start counting time from whatever point the process started, and there were N0 atoms at that time, the number of atoms present at time t is:



(see < Radiometric Dating > to see how the second equation is derived from the first).

Now, a moron might say that, since there is exponentiation involved in both this equation and the compound interest equation, then changes in the decay constant lambda will compound. but lambda and time "t" appear in the exponent. So when we solve for "t", the age of the sample:



we see that the relationship between "t" and lambda is hyperbolic, not exponential. A change in lambda results in a inversely proportional change in the calculated age, but if you increase the change in lambda the effect on "t" decreases as the change in lambda increases. A 0.5% change in lambda at t=0 (the best case for you, applying the changed rate throughout the entire process) changes the calculated age of the sample by 0.4975%.

(How we determine N0 is interesting but is outside the scope of this discussion. N and lambda are, of course, measured in the present.)

This equation applies to simple-accumulation methods, such as K-Ar. The more advanced age-diagnostic methods are governed by more complex equations, but the relationship between "t" and lambda is always inversely proportional. For example, the Pb-Pb isochron which is the way we find the total age of the Earth:



which is not solvable analytically, but can be solved using a computer. Note that "t" appears in the exponent multiplied by lambda, so we know that as in the above example "t" is inversely proportional to lambda.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The sound you just heard was that of this post going right over forastero's head.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course. He hasn't a prayer.


I don't know of any dating methods, isochron or not, called "U-Pb-He" or "Ne-Ne" or "U-U". There is (U-Th)/He which results in a stable 4He isotope and is not an isochron method. There is cosmogenic exposure dating involving the radioisotope 21Ne, but that's not an isochron method. I suppose there could be U-U disequilibrium dating, but that wouldn't be an isochron method.

The only radioisotope daughter product in his list is U. And it appears that three of the methods in his list are not isochron methods, which is the class of methods under discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


U-U < http://www.inqua2011.ch/?a=prog....onid=85 >

(U-Th)/He                                                                       < http://www.mendeley.com/researc....-ages-9 > < http://europa.agu.org/?uri=....article >

"U-Pb/ He" < http://www.icr.org/article....g-world >   ?
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 16 2011,11:31

One of the things that continually befuddles me about creationists is their apparent belief that in their own  profound --and oftentimes admitted-- ignorance they believe that learned, experienced people  are not aware of, and haven't considered, the bloody obvious.

ETA: Typo
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 16 2011,11:38

Hey forastero,

I noticed that you still have absolutely no idea where your growth rate comes from.  I find it hard to believe that a rational person could stand behind an equation that includes variables that he does't even understand.

Fortunately, you aren't a rational person.  However, you could take a first step in that direction by tell us how you derived THE GROWTH RATE IN YOUR POPULATION EQUATION.


Thanks.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 16 2011,11:48

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,11:44)
 
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:00)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,22:39)
     
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,15:40)
       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:56)
           
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)
           
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29)

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained.

Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at < http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html. >  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.  

Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground."


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, dear, cut and paste IDiot strikes again!  Ar-40 is not cosmogenic.  From the very page which your quoted material is from.

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your link dont work

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

because the software added the period at the end of the sentence to the link.  Not much of a problem-solver, are you?


[snip]

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plus you are still ignoring the following:

Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32
Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways."

Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think a person who can't even tell if isotopes are stable or not and can't handle "formula-waving" are incapable of having a discussion of a technical paper that would require a critical appraisal of petrography.  The key concept which I am sure you never heard of is fractionation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was referring to the other 90% of Argon isotopes, which are radioactive, because I had been reading on the more popular Ar40/39Ar isochron; which btw also involves two radioisotopes 39K and 39Ar ( made by cosmic rays from 40Ar).  
< http://www.ees.nmt.edu/outside....ml#Prin >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you read the links I provided long ago, you would understand how the Ar-Ar method (which is another atypical isochron method, and seldom considered as an isochron method) compensates for this.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh and did you know that cosmic rays also produce 39K, 40K, 33Ar, 36Ar, 37Ar, 38Ar, 39Ar, and 41Ar, etc.. etc….  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fascinating. Most people that frantically Google to try to find information about dating at least come up with facts, even if those facts belie creationism.

You, OTOH, come up with lies. Where are you getting this crap from?

Right off the top of my head I can tell you that 40K is not cosmogenic. The other isotopes you mention, cosmogenic or not, are not relevant.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and I wouldn’t be surprised if the mysterious excesses of Ar40 was actually via cosmic rays too
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reality doesn't care what surprises you. 40Ar is not cosmogenic. The fact that so many K-Ar dates agree with other methods that are not sensitive to the initial amount of daughter isotope, and studies of modern-day lavas, proves that "excess argon" in quantities sufficient to be significant is a rare phenomenon.

We have a claim that isochron methods involve multiple radioisotopes... false except for Pb-Pb, which is a special case. We have a claim that the daughter products used in 99% of isochron methods are themselves unstable... false.  Now a claim that parent and daughter isotopes used in isochron dating are cosmogenic... false.

You just keep on going and going, don't you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh so my isochrons are atypical. Again, the A-A isochron that I listed is now more popular than yours.

Oh and go to google and do this: " cosmogenic 40k "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ar-Ar is a very widely used dating technique, and the results  can be plotted on an isochron diagram, but they seldom are. Ar-Ar is not typically thought of as an isochron method. If you do think of it as an isochron method it's an atypical isochron method, for several reasons you don't know and obviously can't learn.

I have no idea what you mean by "more popular than yours". Although Ar-Ar is widely used, and K-Ar isn't used much since the availability of Ar-Ar increased and its cost came down, U-Pb concordia-discordia is by far the most widely used method currently. That's not an isochron method. The results almost always agree with isochron method results.

I already googled "cosmogenic 40K". Got any relevant examples? (I.e. terrrestrial.)
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 16 2011,11:52

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,12:09)
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:13)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:56)
     
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)
       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29)

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained.

Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at < http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html. >  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.  

Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground."

Your link dont work but if these fossil bearing rocks must contain more than one type of the very few so called stable isotopes of a radioisotope, then isochron dating must be very rare.  Like I said said, almost all radioisotope daughters are known to be unstable.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And what you said said was wrong.

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Heck, even the few so called stable isotpes in isochron dating are known to be stable but are then referred to as some anomalous deviation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Such as what, and what references say this?

 
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Most Ar isotope decay either alpha or beta radioactivity
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......f_argon >

Most  Sr isotopes decay beta, alpha, or electron capture radioactivity
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium >  

Most Nd isotopes  decay beta radioactivity
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......odymium >

Most Ba isotopes  decay beta or Isomeric radioactivity
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._barium >

Most Hf isotopes that almost always decays beta, alpha, Isomeric, or electron capture  radioactivity
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......hafnium >

Most Ne isotopes decay beta  radioactivity
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......of_neon >

Most Os isotopes decay beta, alpha, Isomeric, or electron capture  radioactivity
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._osmium >

Most U isotopes decay beta or fission  radioactivity
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......uranium >

Oh and you can also see that some of the isotopes that correspond to the so called stable isotopes actually decay
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm talking about the isotopes used in radiometric dating. The tables to which you referred are excellent resources and show that the daughter isotopes used in isochron radiometric dating are stable.

  • 40Ar (K-Ar and Ar-Ar)
  • 87Sr (Rb-Sr)
  • 143Nd (Sm-Nd)
  • 138Ba (La-Ba)
  • 206Pb, 207Pb (Pb-Pb, which does involve multiple radioisotope parents but the final daughters are stable)
  • 176Hf (Lu-Hf)
  • 187Os (Re-Os)

Posted by: JonF on Nov. 16 2011,12:09

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,12:21)
 
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:13)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plus you are still ignoring the following:

Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32
Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And those independent age determinations almost always result in confirming the isochron age. E.g. < Radiometric Ages of Some Early Archean and Related Rocks of the North Atlantic Craton > and < Radiometeric Dating Does Work! >.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You still haven't figured out how sedimentary layers are dated. Repeating myself from page 27:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well its not usually your so called stable alpha decaying isotopes.  Anyway though please do finally teach us why you think the radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks is so accurate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. After you read my references and figure out what's going on.

Here's a hint. If sedimentary layer B is above igneous layer A which is 100 million years old and layer B is also below igneous layer C which is 90 million years old, and there's no signs of disturbance after deposition or solidification, how old is layer B?

And if igneous layer D cuts through all layers A and B, obviously by seeping into cracks and then solidifying, but doesn't cut through layer C and dates to 95 million years old, how old is layer B?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All you are doing is "saying" the sedimentary rocks are uncontaminated and dated accurately, which doesnt make it so. Do you at least agree that sedimentary rocks would have a lot more mixing and isotope contamination than igneous rocks?

What references did you ever give on Sedimentary isochrons?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wotta maroon. Can't even read a simple paragraph and extract the meaning. No, I'm not just saying the sedimentary rocks are uncontaminated and dated accurately. I'm not saying that they are uncontaminated, contamination of sedimentary rocks doesn't matter. I'm saying they are dated accurately for the reasons I explained twice.

"Mixing and isotope contamination" in sedimentary rocks is irrelevant although mixing is likely to be less in sedimentary rocks and isotopic contamination is probably about the same as in igneous rocks.

Few if any isochrons are available for sedimentary rocks, because most sedimentary rocks are dated by stratigraphic position relative to igneous rocks, as I already explained twice. Once immediately above.

I dug up one example of directly dating sedimentary rock by an isochron method: < Sm-Nd isotopic dating of Proterozoic clay material: An example from the Francevillian sedimentary series, Gabon >.

I'm saying the igneous rocks are dated accurately, for reasons explained in detail in the references I've given you so many times. Contamination and initial daughter are accounted for in modern methods.  We conclude from theory and experiment that decay rates are sufficiently constant as to not cause any significant errors.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 16 2011,12:21

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,12:29)
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 14 2011,15:08)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 14 2011,15:23)
   
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 14 2011,13:05)
Here, forastero, I'll make it simple for you. We know that, in any radiosotope, the number of atoms that decay per unit time is proportional to the number of atoms present. If there are N radioisotope atoms present and "t" is time, then the change in the number of atoms per unit time, dN/dt, is given by:


Where lambda is the decay constant.

If we start counting time from whatever point the process started, and there were N0 atoms at that time, the number of atoms present at time t is:



(see < Radiometric Dating > to see how the second equation is derived from the first).

Now, a moron might say that, since there is exponentiation involved in both this equation and the compound interest equation, then changes in the decay constant lambda will compound. but lambda and time "t" appear in the exponent. So when we solve for "t", the age of the sample:



we see that the relationship between "t" and lambda is hyperbolic, not exponential. A change in lambda results in a inversely proportional change in the calculated age, but if you increase the change in lambda the effect on "t" decreases as the change in lambda increases. A 0.5% change in lambda at t=0 (the best case for you, applying the changed rate throughout the entire process) changes the calculated age of the sample by 0.4975%.

(How we determine N0 is interesting but is outside the scope of this discussion. N and lambda are, of course, measured in the present.)

This equation applies to simple-accumulation methods, such as K-Ar. The more advanced age-diagnostic methods are governed by more complex equations, but the relationship between "t" and lambda is always inversely proportional. For example, the Pb-Pb isochron which is the way we find the total age of the Earth:



which is not solvable analytically, but can be solved using a computer. Note that "t" appears in the exponent multiplied by lambda, so we know that as in the above example "t" is inversely proportional to lambda.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The sound you just heard was that of this post going right over forastero's head.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course. He hasn't a prayer.


I don't know of any dating methods, isochron or not, called "U-Pb-He" or "Ne-Ne" or "U-U". There is (U-Th)/He which results in a stable 4He isotope and is not an isochron method. There is cosmogenic exposure dating involving the radioisotope 21Ne, but that's not an isochron method. I suppose there could be U-U disequilibrium dating, but that wouldn't be an isochron method.

The only radioisotope daughter product in his list is U. And it appears that three of the methods in his list are not isochron methods, which is the class of methods under discussion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


U-U < http://www.inqua2011.ch/?a=prog....onid=85 >

(U-Th)/He                                                                       < http://www.mendeley.com/researc....-ages-9 > < http://europa.agu.org/?uri=......article >

"U-Pb/ He" < http://www.icr.org/article....g-world >   ?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, I made a mistake, (U-Th)/He can be an isochron method. And I'm interested to see that the possible U-U disequilibrium method I mentioned dooes actually exist. But still no Ne-Ne or U-Pb-He.

(The RATE group's zircon work is not a dating method; it just plain doesn't work. I'm somewhat of an expert on RATE's zircon work and could discuss it in detail. It appears that Humphreys' analysis depends solely on three very suspect data points, which the evidence available indicates are probably instrument noise. Humphreys has refused to release the lab report, even though he's been explicitly asked to do so and he released an earlier lab report. Very suspicious, and not the way scientists act.) See < Assessing the RATE Project >, < RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth): Analysis and Evaluation of Radiometric Dating: Helium Diffusion in Zircons >, and especially < Expanding on Helium in Zircons: Are the key three or four data points in the 2003 experiment valid? > which will be publised on the ASA site in a day or two.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 16 2011,12:32

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,10:35)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2011,08:27)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:50)
Again, you are not listing any of these so called 26 geologic columns. Nor are you mentioning your Big Bang theory and probably because you found that the Big Bang bigwigs call it an explosion of some sort.

As for the Flood, your own scriptures reveal some Biblical stratigraphy of the Carboniferous ecology. I mean, we have a veritable paradise with exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism; but that was also being interrupted by some sort of mysteriously and perhaps sinful perturbations. Then all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world.

Today, we call this the "Carboniferous rainforest collapse" where huge amounts of  hydrocarboned fossil-fuels were produced via hydrothermally flooded organic matter. Hmm come to think about it, a microcosm of the event could be the horrendous pyrolysis witnessed at the bottom of the Twin tower on 9/11
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1) It's not my job to do your work for you.  You want to create positive evidence, then do so.  It should be trivial for you to prove me wrong, if indeed these 26 locations with complete geologic columns from precambrian to present exist.  All you have to do is show that they don't (they do, but you don't know that, which is hilarious to me).

2) YOU claimed that the Big Bang was an explosion.  You say that many scientists agree with you.  It should be trivial then for you to tell me what exploded.  Please do so and quit trying to pin this on me.  It's YOUR claim, you support it (or admit that you can't).

3) They are not my scriptures.  

4)    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

citation please

5)    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



citation please

please DEFINE "Sudden"  1 year?  100,000 years?  42 million years?

And we're back to the Cambrian explosion again.  You've already admitted that these things occurred many, many times.  So, now, where, EXACTLY should I be looking for the flood strata?

Here's an interesting clue... in what era do the largest minable coal seams in the US belong?

So are you claiming that there is now coal at the bottom of the World Trade Center?

LOL the gift that keeps on giving.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for encouraging me to uncover any facts from your scriptures myself. Ah here are some lines to read between. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......iferous >

The map in the above link shows the the great Carboniferous coalfields of the U.S. quite well

...but for those actually interested in science, I'd suggest  Googling Carboniferous and any of the key words that I mentioned and you find I speak the truth but the following has quite a bit of it

As for the WTC, I was referring to the molten and carbonated balls of what-not
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps you could... answer the questions...

I know, silly me.  Why answer questions that you know will totally destroy your personal woldview.  Reality being totally inconsequential to that world view.

Let me repeat, because of your non-answers (again).



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

1) It's not my job to do your work for you.  You want to create positive evidence, then do so.  It should be trivial for you to prove me wrong, if indeed these 26 locations with complete geologic columns from precambrian to present exist.  All you have to do is show that they don't (they do, but you don't know that, which is hilarious to me).

2) YOU claimed that the Big Bang was an explosion.  You say that many scientists agree with you.  It should be trivial then for you to tell me what exploded.  Please do so and quit trying to pin this on me.  It's YOUR claim, you support it (or admit that you can't).

3) They are not my scriptures.  

4)    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

citation please

5)    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



citation please

please DEFINE "Sudden"  1 year?  100,000 years?  42 million years?

And we're back to the Cambrian explosion again.  You've already admitted that these things occurred many, many times.  So, what exploded, when, and how long did they last?

So, now, where, EXACTLY should I be looking for the flood strata?  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Seriously, if you think the Carboniferous is the flood deposits, then you need some serious help.

This link (http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/wcsb_atlas/a_ch14/ch_14.html) shows a Carboniferous layer in Canada that includes some 600 feet of Dolostone overlain by another 200-300 feet of carbonates.  And (as a cheery on top) a nice layer of various anhydrites, which, given the name, you should realize does not form in water.  That is then overlain by another 100 feet of silt/sandstone layers that do not form in turbulent water.

Or you can go here:

Here's an interesting clue... in what era do the largest minable coal seams in the US belong?

The world< The Carboniferous of the World > and learn about the 4000 meters (about 13,000 feet) of TERRESTRIAL Carboniferous deposits, which, I can assure you, do not form in water.

Heck, read the whole book.

So, are you going to lay your claim (regardless of the age of the formations, we'll get to that) that the Carboniferous (all of it) is the flood deposit?

yes or no

if no, then what is?

edit: quote goof.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 16 2011,12:36

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 16 2011,12:01)
forastero, you do understand that after a time your non-response itself becomes a response, shouted from mount Ararat: "I HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA HOW TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION."

Which, both for me and other interested readers, accomplishes as much as any answer you can supply. Given this non-answer/answer, the question indicts your position, and your previous sciencey lip service, as empty babbling. You might want to try to control that impression by actually supplying a relevant response. Otherwise, I've accomplished a lot of what I set out to accomplish, which anyone can see.

(No sleeve-muttering, please).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OH shit he done tripped a nuke wire.  when RB starts dick joking you YOU ARE FUCKED
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 16 2011,12:37

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 16 2011,12:09)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,10:47)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 16 2011,10:42)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,10:35)
Thank you for encouraging me to uncover any facts from your scriptures myself. Ah here are some lines to read between. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......iferous >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But why would you bother reading that when the very first line talks about millions of years, and you flatly deny that the earth is in fact millions of years old.

If the first line is wrong, according to you, what value can the rest possibly have?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because when the Nazis controlled and manipulated  science and art and food, etc... etc..., people still wanted to live
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Look, why don't you just tell me that Jesus loves me and call an end to this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




it's all the stain has left you know
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 16 2011,12:52

Not quite working out how you hoped is it forastero?

You just don't get it yet. Some of the learned folk here are like cats.

They will *never* get bored playing with you. Getting you to admit you are wrong about everything you believe is just the cherry on the cake, it's not necessary for the party to continue.

If you don't believe me then check out the AFDave thread:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....31;st=0 >

And that's the second part.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 16 2011,12:59

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 16 2011,12:31)
One of the things that continually befuddles me about creationists is their apparent belief that in their own  profound --and oftentimes admitted-- ignorance they believe that learned, experienced people  are not aware of, and haven't considered, the bloody obvious.

ETA: Typo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I LOVE IT SO!


Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 16 2011,13:00

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 16 2011,13:52)
Not quite working out how you hoped is it forastero?

You just don't get it yet. Some of the learned folk here are like cats.

They will *never* get bored playing with you. Getting you to admit you are wrong about everything you believe is just the cherry on the cake, it's not necessary for the party to continue.

If you don't believe me then check out the AFDave thread:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....31;st=0 >

And that's the second part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HEY!!!!



Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 16 2011,19:47

< http://scienceblogs.com/startsw....e_u.php >

Boom goes the dynamite.  ANOTHER (as in, 'yes, more than one') prediction of the Big Bang theory confirmed by two independent experiments.

What predictions have your notions made and have they been confirmed by multiple independent tests?

But don't let that stop you.

BTW: What exploded (hint, read the link) to start the Big Bang?

BTW2: Is the Carboniferous (all of it) the flood strata?  yes or no
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 16 2011,20:08

THE ADVENTURES OF LITTLE BUNNY
A True Story

Chapter I:  Little Bunny Runs From the Flood!

FARMER BILL: "Little Bunny, when was the flood, relative to which these eras were 'ante' and 'post'?"

(Little Bunny hides behind a tree!)

FARMER BILL:  "When was the flood? Which eras preceded the flood, and which followed?"

(Little Bunny squeaks, but he does not answer.)

FARMER BILL:  "When was the flood? You didn't say."

(Little Bunny hides quietly in the tall grass.)

FARMER BILL: "Oh, and when was the flood? You didn't say."

(Little Bunny is very still. He thinks, "Maybe then they can't see me!")

FARMER BILL:  "There you are Little Bunny! When was the flood?"

(Little bunny runs and runs! He thinks, "If I keep running, maybe they can't see me!")

FARMER BILL: "There you go, you Little Bunny! When did the flood occur? I seemed to have missed that."

(Little Bunny runs and runs!)

FARMER BILL: "When was the flood? An order of magnitude will do."

LITTLE BUNNY:  "I answered honestly the question about the date of the Flood when I said no human really knows until he gets to heaven…

Little Bunny frowns.

LITTLE BUNNY:  "I feel most of the evidence that I have provided reveals a fairly young earth and probably under 20,000 years old."

FARMER BILL: "Just can't bring yourself to do it, can you?"



Chapter II: Little Bunny Runs from Farmer Bill!

FARMER BILL: "So, then, it is your argument that…these and similar errors can "accumulate" to the point that dated objects (such as the earth) are estimated to to 227,000 times older than they actually are."

(Little Bunny runs into the briar patch!)  

FARMER BILL: "So, then, it is your assertion that…these and similar errors can "accumulate" to the point that dated objects have been estimated to be 227,000 times older than they actually are."

(Little Bunny is very, very still.)

FARMER BILL: "Is it your assertion that…these and similar errors, of similar magnitude, can "accumulate" to the point that you are justified in asserting objects (such as the earth) are estimated to be 227,000x older than they actually are?”

Little Bunny speaks, but he does not answer:

LITTLE BUNNY: "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."

FARMER BILL: "That is not responsive…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?"

(Little Bunny hides in the garden!)

FARMER BILL: 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?

(Little Bunny thumps the ground. Then he runs away!)

FARMER BILL: "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?"

Little Bunny speaks, but he does not answer:

LITTLE BUNNY: "227,000X older? Now thats some quantum physics I aint been seeing to often."

FARMER BILL: "227,000x follows directly from your own statements….Is it your belief that sources of error such as the alleged 0.5% radiometric fluctuations (and all other alleged similar errors), however they are "accumulative," are of sufficient magnitude to result in estimated ages, such as the age of the earth, that are 227,000x the actual values?"

Little Bunny speaks, but he does not answer:

LITTLE BUNNY: "Right, it should make it appear older imo"

FARMER BILL: "I am asking if it is your belief that "accumulative" errors alleged in your cites are sufficient to result in ages that are not merely older, but 227,000 times older."

Little Bunny speaks, but he does not answer!

LITTLE BUNNY: "Again, the fluctuations, assumptions, circular calibrations, contaminations, religious fervor, etc etc etc make your radiomagic dating a joke"

FARMER BILL:  "I'm not asking whether it is your belief that radiometric dating is a joke, or whether you otherwise disdain that and other techniques that indicate an earth that is vastly older than your wishful fiction…I am asking if it is your belief that the errors alleged in your cites are sufficient to result in ages that are not merely older, but 227,000 times older."

AT LAST, Little Bunny answers mean Farmer Bill:

LITTLE BUNNY: "Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off.

FARMER BILL: "Again?"



Chapter III: Little Bunny Hides from Farmer Bill!

(This chapter is a bit slow, because Little Bunny is very very afraid and not very smart.)

FARMER BILL: "Little Bunny, 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?"

(Little Bunny runs away!)

FARMER BILL: “Tell me Little Bunny. 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?”

(Little Bunny runs in a big circle!)

FARMER BILL: “You don’t have to run, Little Bunny! 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?”

(Little Bunny hides in the big empty barn!)

FARMER BILL: “Come out, Little Bunny! 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?”

(Little Bunny awakens with a start! He hops away as fast as his fat bunny legs will carry him!)

FARMER BILL: “You are a fast Little Bunny! 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?”

(Little Bunny is very still. He thinks, “maybe if I’m very still, they can’t see me.”)

FARMER BILL: “I see you, Little Bunny! 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?”

(Little Bunny pretends he does not hear Farmer Bill.)

FARMER BILL: “Listen, Little Bunny. 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?”

(Little Bunny DOES NOT LIKE FARMER BILL. Not one bit. “I will not answer him.”)

FARMER BILL: “But Little Bunny, 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?”

(Little Bunny leaps into the rain barrel! The water is cold!)

FARMER BILL: “Oh, poor Little Bunny. You do understand that after a time your non-response itself becomes a response, shouted from mount Ararat: "I HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA HOW TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION."

THE END.


Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 16 2011,21:19

That was a good story. Can we have another one tomorrow? G'night, Farmer Bill.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 16 2011,23:11

Quote (blipey @ Nov. 16 2011,11:38)
Hey forastero,

I noticed that you still have absolutely no idea where your growth rate comes from.  I find it hard to believe that a rational person could stand behind an equation that includes variables that he does't even understand.

Fortunately, you aren't a rational person.  However, you could take a first step in that direction by tell us how you derived THE GROWTH RATE IN YOUR POPULATION EQUATION.


Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that the growth rate that I provided is about average compared to other estimates prehistoric and/or hunter gather estimates listed below. Thus, if we used yall's long ages, the populations would be vastly higher and man could grind a grave just about anywhere he dug

< 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 >

< http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >

< http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 16 2011,23:27

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2011,08:31)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:19)
The same the Flood piled up over 2200 feet in Carboniferous Texas


THE MISSISSIPPIAN BARNETT FORMATION:
A SOURCE-ROCK, SEAL, AND RESERVOIR PRODUCED BY EARLY CARBONIFEROUS FLOODING OF THE TEXAS CRATON

< http://www.beg.utexas.edu/resprog....ter.pdf >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, 2200 = 17,000?

So, are you claiming here that the strata that is the flood is from the carboniferous?

So, we should start looking for 17,000 feet worth of coal somewhere in the carboniferous period?

While, we're talking, please discuss the Green River Formation and the annual layers that result in 6 million years of history in that one formation.

I'd like to know if that is a pre-flood, flood, or post-flood strata.

Thanks
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, are you ever gonna tell me where this 17,000 ft of sediment was found?

Again, the carboniferous represents strata of hydrocarbonated fossil fuels caused by Flooded and buried rainforests.

Likewise, the Green River formation is a remnant of the great the Niobrara Sea, which is itself a remnant of the Flood
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 16 2011,23:30

See the Flood that caused the Niobrara  Sea  http://dumais.us/newtown/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wandering-shorelines-the-ecosystem-of-the-niobrara-sea.pdf
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 17 2011,00:18

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,11:48)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,11:44)
   
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:00)
   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,22:39)
       
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,15:40)
       
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:56)
           
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)
             
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29)

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained.

Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at < http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html. >  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.  

Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground."


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, dear, cut and paste IDiot strikes again!  Ar-40 is not cosmogenic.  From the very page which your quoted material is from.

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your link dont work

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

because the software added the period at the end of the sentence to the link.  Not much of a problem-solver, are you?


[snip]

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plus you are still ignoring the following:

Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32
Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways."

Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think a person who can't even tell if isotopes are stable or not and can't handle "formula-waving" are incapable of having a discussion of a technical paper that would require a critical appraisal of petrography.  The key concept which I am sure you never heard of is fractionation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was referring to the other 90% of Argon isotopes, which are radioactive, because I had been reading on the more popular Ar40/39Ar isochron; which btw also involves two radioisotopes 39K and 39Ar ( made by cosmic rays from 40Ar).  
< http://www.ees.nmt.edu/outside....ml#Prin >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you read the links I provided long ago, you would understand how the Ar-Ar method (which is another atypical isochron method, and seldom considered as an isochron method) compensates for this.
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh and did you know that cosmic rays also produce 39K, 40K, 33Ar, 36Ar, 37Ar, 38Ar, 39Ar, and 41Ar, etc.. etc….  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fascinating. Most people that frantically Google to try to find information about dating at least come up with facts, even if those facts belie creationism.

You, OTOH, come up with lies. Where are you getting this crap from?

Right off the top of my head I can tell you that 40K is not cosmogenic. The other isotopes you mention, cosmogenic or not, are not relevant.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and I wouldn’t be surprised if the mysterious excesses of Ar40 was actually via cosmic rays too
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reality doesn't care what surprises you. 40Ar is not cosmogenic. The fact that so many K-Ar dates agree with other methods that are not sensitive to the initial amount of daughter isotope, and studies of modern-day lavas, proves that "excess argon" in quantities sufficient to be significant is a rare phenomenon.

We have a claim that isochron methods involve multiple radioisotopes... false except for Pb-Pb, which is a special case. We have a claim that the daughter products used in 99% of isochron methods are themselves unstable... false.  Now a claim that parent and daughter isotopes used in isochron dating are cosmogenic... false.

You just keep on going and going, don't you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh so my isochrons are atypical. Again, the A-A isochron that I listed is now more popular than yours.

Oh and go to google and do this: " cosmogenic 40k "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ar-Ar is a very widely used dating technique, and the results  can be plotted on an isochron diagram, but they seldom are. Ar-Ar is not typically thought of as an isochron method. If you do think of it as an isochron method it's an atypical isochron method, for several reasons you don't know and obviously can't learn.

I have no idea what you mean by "more popular than yours". Although Ar-Ar is widely used, and K-Ar isn't used much since the availability of Ar-Ar increased and its cost came down, U-Pb concordia-discordia is by far the most widely used method currently. That's not an isochron method. The results almost always agree with isochron method results.

I already googled "cosmogenic 40K". Got any relevant examples? (I.e. terrrestrial.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I have been reading that Rb-Sr is the most common and as with my earlier example, its not always a stable daughter isotope because 85Sr  is used to. What is really interesting though is that some so called stable isotopes like 87Sr have both stable and unstable variants. 87Sr can radioactively change back to either its parent or a different variant.

Here is an abstract on cosmogenic 40k but its split between two pages
< http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full....5R.342N > < http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full....00.html >
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 17 2011,00:39

Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,12:09)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,12:21)
 
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:13)
     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plus you are still ignoring the following:

Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32
Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And those independent age determinations almost always result in confirming the isochron age. E.g. < Radiometric Ages of Some Early Archean and Related Rocks of the North Atlantic Craton > and < Radiometeric Dating Does Work! >.

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You still haven't figured out how sedimentary layers are dated. Repeating myself from page 27:

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well its not usually your so called stable alpha decaying isotopes.  Anyway though please do finally teach us why you think the radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks is so accurate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. After you read my references and figure out what's going on.

Here's a hint. If sedimentary layer B is above igneous layer A which is 100 million years old and layer B is also below igneous layer C which is 90 million years old, and there's no signs of disturbance after deposition or solidification, how old is layer B?

And if igneous layer D cuts through all layers A and B, obviously by seeping into cracks and then solidifying, but doesn't cut through layer C and dates to 95 million years old, how old is layer B?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All you are doing is "saying" the sedimentary rocks are uncontaminated and dated accurately, which doesnt make it so. Do you at least agree that sedimentary rocks would have a lot more mixing and isotope contamination than igneous rocks?

What references did you ever give on Sedimentary isochrons?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wotta maroon. Can't even read a simple paragraph and extract the meaning. No, I'm not just saying the sedimentary rocks are uncontaminated and dated accurately. I'm not saying that they are uncontaminated, contamination of sedimentary rocks doesn't matter. I'm saying they are dated accurately for the reasons I explained twice.

"Mixing and isotope contamination" in sedimentary rocks is irrelevant although mixing is likely to be less in sedimentary rocks and isotopic contamination is probably about the same as in igneous rocks.

Few if any isochrons are available for sedimentary rocks, because most sedimentary rocks are dated by stratigraphic position relative to igneous rocks, as I already explained twice. Once immediately above.

I dug up one example of directly dating sedimentary rock by an isochron method: < Sm-Nd isotopic dating of Proterozoic clay material: An example from the Francevillian sedimentary series, Gabon >.

I'm saying the igneous rocks are dated accurately, for reasons explained in detail in the references I've given you so many times. Contamination and initial daughter are accounted for in modern methods.  We conclude from theory and experiment that decay rates are sufficiently constant as to not cause any significant errors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Those concordant dates were done mostly by the same people and the national center of pseudoscience TAX makes my skin crawl. Again there is no way to know for sure the origin of the daughter isotopes

The whole reason that sedimenatary rocks are not usually radiometrically dated is because they are mixed with a vast array of sedimentary stuff. Yes they are dated by index fossils but then the index fossils are in turn dated by the sedimentary rocks? Thats circular reasoning of the most grotesque kind.
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 17 2011,00:46

You playing General Custer?
Posted by: forastero on Nov. 17 2011,00:58

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 16 2011,12:52)
Not quite working out how you hoped is it forastero?

You just don't get it yet. Some of the learned folk here are like cats.

They will *never* get bored playing with you. Getting you to admit you are wrong about everything you believe is just the cherry on the cake, it's not necessary for the party to continue.

If you don't believe me then check out the AFDave thread:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....31;st=0 >

And that's the second part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear General Custer and farmer bill

Did you also call it progress when they exchanged buffalo for cows?
Posted by: Amadan on Nov. 17 2011,02:14

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,06:46)
You playing General Custer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you would be . . .


Posted by: Ptaylor on Nov. 17 2011,03:02

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,16:30)
See the Flood that caused the Niobrara  Sea  http://dumais.us/newtown/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wandering-shorelines-the-ecosystem-of-the-niobrara-sea.pdf
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I mainly stay on the UD thread(s) here, but following your link I have to say...Hahahahahahahahaha!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 17 2011,03:33

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,00:39)
Yes they are dated by index fossils but then the index fossils are in turn dated by the sedimentary rocks?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, in reality how old are these fossils really, and how old are the rocks?

Please do tell, if you in fact know the truth of the matter.
Posted by: Cubist on Nov. 17 2011,03:43

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,00:39)
The whole reason that sedimenatary rocks are not usually radiometrically dated is because they are mixed with a vast array of sedimentary stuff. Yes they are dated by index fossils but then the index fossils are in turn dated by the sedimentary rocks? Thats circular reasoning of the most grotesque kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I fully agree: date the layers by the fossils, and then date the fossils by the layers is a grotesque example of circular reasoning. Fortunately, it's also a grotesquely inaccurate Creationist caricature of what real scientists do when they work on figuring out how old rocks are, so the actual dates provided by real scientists are not rendered invalid by that caricature.
The evidence of, well, pretty much everything you've posted here, suggests that you have no desire to learn more about what real scientists do when they work on figuring out how old rocks are, forastero. If you ever change your mind about that, lots of people here will be happy to help you remedy your ignorance.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 17 2011,03:58



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes they are dated by index fossils but then the index fossils are in turn dated by the sedimentary rocks? Thats circular reasoning of the most grotesque kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I don’t know.

I am not a scientist and I don’t see anything to suggest forastero might qualify either but I really believe I understand science better than him. I do at least try to understand what science actually says, and apply my own intellect to the best of my ability in order to learn, because I have only one thought in mind: I want to know the facts and how it really is, without making an effort to harmonize science with religion; that would be like using castor oil for cooking.

It seems to me that to there ought to be and most likely exist calibration markers. It must have been possible to locate both fossils and sediments that with good margin may be dated. They would independently fit somewhere in time between other fossil species and sediments.

Fossils obviously fit in a certain timeframe, and so do sediments. And, as pointed out by JonF, igneous layers may provide additional evidence for dating sediments.

If forastero really believe (which, I am afraid I must conclude, he is stupid enough really to believe: his own thoughts are the last word on any subject.) that not one or two, but virtually the entire scientific establishment spending lifetimes studying the planet and its geology were/are morons? Engaging in circular reasoning of the most grotesque kind?

That they in unison have been able to get away with the most obvious, absurdly useless methodology without opposition?

May I suggest forastero the scientist spend some time in the talkorigins archive and take the time it takes to write a rational critique of mainstream scientific thought on the age of the Earth, the dating of strata and fossils, and many other areas of science where he is in opposition to mainstream science?

One of his greatest problems, also casting serious doubts on his objectivity and ability for rational thought, is all the references to religion, and characterizations of his opponents.

He seems to have a problem staying on topic and use rational arguments. Add to that that he is running around in choice of subjects like a caged squirrel.

For all the noise he is making, he ought to be beyond basics but he isn’t. It is wasted on him but I offer a useful link anyway:

< How Old is the Earth? >

< History of Radiometric Dating >
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 17 2011,05:50

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 17 2011,04:43)
If you ever change your mind about that, lots of people here will be happy to help you remedy your ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Until then, we'll have a ball pointing out how stupid you are fourass!


Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 17 2011,06:18

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,01:58)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 16 2011,12:52)
Not quite working out how you hoped is it forastero?

You just don't get it yet. Some of the learned folk here are like cats.

They will *never* get bored playing with you. Getting you to admit you are wrong about everything you believe is just the cherry on the cake, it's not necessary for the party to continue.

If you don't believe me then check out the AFDave thread:

< http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....31;st=0 >

And that's the second part.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear General Custer and farmer bill

Did you also call it progress when they exchanged buffalo for cows?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, Looky!! Little Bunny CAN hear Farmer Bill. And he has been very busy leaving pellets in the barnyard this morning, so we know he is up for a question.

Little Bunny,

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?

Will Little Bunny be very still? Or will he speak, but not answer?
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 17 2011,06:38

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,00:30)
See the Flood that caused the Niobrara  Sea  http://dumais.us/newtown/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/wandering-shorelines-the-ecosystem-of-the-niobrara-sea.pdf
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first sentence, the first phrase of that article is "85 million years ago,..."

Little Bunny, you do not believe in "85 million years ago." You believe that 85 million years is 4,250x the age of the earth, and that the earth has existed just the last 1/4250th of that interval.

Why do you offer events you believe never to have occurred, due to your belief in a young earth, as evidence of a young earth?

Will Little Bunny run and run and run? Or will he speak, but not answer?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 17 2011,06:53

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,23:11)
   
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 16 2011,11:38)
Hey forastero,

I noticed that you still have absolutely no idea where your growth rate comes from.  I find it hard to believe that a rational person could stand behind an equation that includes variables that he does't even understand.

Fortunately, you aren't a rational person.  However, you could take a first step in that direction by tell us how you derived THE GROWTH RATE IN YOUR POPULATION EQUATION.


Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that the growth rate that I provided is about average compared to other estimates prehistoric and/or hunter gather estimates listed below. Thus, if we used yall's long ages, the populations would be vastly higher and man could grind a grave just about anywhere he dug

< 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 >

< http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >

< http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Providing a number isn't the issue. Showing how the number was derived was the question. Understanding something about population dynamics is well down the road from that first step, apparently.

Did you not bother to read < my critique > of the SciCre population argument? I provided the link earlier.

Oh well, I guess I'll just post it here for you.

===


Population Size and Time of Creation or Flood

by Wesley R. Elsberry
Last updated: 980413
SciCre Population Dynamics: An Exercise in Selective and Misleading Use of Data
 
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 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. Some are precise enough to restrict their conclusion to only humans, others leave how much is disproved unspecified.  Some utilize the numbers to infer intermediate population sizes.
 
I am going to point out some problems with the SciCre population argument.  First, the argument assumes what it is supposed to prove. Second, all such arguments yield absurd values for population sizes at historical times.  Third, the argument ignores what is known about population dynamics from other species.  Fourth, final population size is an unreliable indicator of initial population time.  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.
 
I will take as an example one such argument forwarded by William Williams in his 1925 book, "Evolution Disproved", and illustrate my points above.  This is available online at < http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilli....ms.html >
 
First, the population argument assumes what it is supposed to prove.
 
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Now, according to the chronology of Hales, based on the Septuagint text, 5077 years have elapsed since the flood, and 5177 years since the ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife.  By dividing 5177 by 30.75, we find it requires an average of 168.3 years for the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the present population.  This is a reasonable average length of time.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
By this calculation, Williams has coupled his rate of increase to his specific timetable, the timetable that the argument is supposed to validate.  If the population argument were to mean something, the rate of increase would be derived from independent information, not from the information that is at issue.  It should surprise no one that Williams is able to show precise concordance of current population with a timetable since The Flood, since that is how he cooked the numbers to begin with.
 
Second, all such arguments yield absurd values for population sizes at historical times.  I will first demonstrate that Williams utilizes his numbers to derive intermediate population sizes.
 
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    The testimony of all the experts in the present Scopes trial in Tennessee (who escaped cross-examination) was to the effect that evolution was in harmony with some facts and therefore possibly true.  The above mathematical calculations prove that the evolution of man was certainly not true.  They fail to make their case even if we grant their claims.  These figures prove the Bible story, and scrap every guess of the great age and the brute origin of man.  It will be observed that the above calculations point to the unity of the race in the days of Noah, 5,177 years ago, rather than in the days of Adam 7,333 years ago, according to Hales' chronology.  If the race increased at the Jewish rate, not over 16,384 perished by the Flood, fewer than by many a modern catastrophe.  This most merciful providence of God started the race anew with a righteous head.
    Now, if there had been not flood to destroy the human race, then the descendants of Adam, in the 7333 years, would have been 16,384 times the 1,804,187,000 or 29,559,799,808,000; or computed at the Jewish rate of net increase for 7333 years since Adam, the population have been still greater, or 35,184,372,088,832.  These calculations are in perfect accord with the Scripture story of the special creation of man, and the destruction of the race by a flood.  Had it not been for the flood, the earth could not have sustained the descendants of Adam.  Is not his demonstration decisive and final?
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 
Now that we have verified that making inferences as to intermediate population values is an activity engaged in by even those people who forward these arguments, we can proceed to showing what the population argument implies about the human population size at various points in history.  The following follows from Williams set of population parameters: 5,177 years prior to 1925 for an initial population of 2, and a doubling time of 168.3 years.
 


---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

World Population    Date     Event
 
                 17  2566 BC  Construction of Great Pyramid
            2,729  1332 BC  Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten dies
            5,000  1185 BC  Trojan War
                     ~1200 BC  Hebrew exodus, # of males = 603,550 (excluding Levites)
          32,971    776 BC  First Olympic games
          87,507    490 BC  Greek wars with Persia
        133,744    387 BC  Brennus' Sack of Rome
        586,678      28 BC  Augustus' census of Rome (70 to 100 million counted)
        655,683        1 AD  Nice date

---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



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.
 
Third, the argument ignores what is known about population dynamics from other species.  Various other species can be observed to sometimes reproduce exponentially, but we observe that such populations fluctuate, stabilize, or crash.  In no case do exponentially reproducing populations "take over the world" as SciCre'ists assure us would be the case if evolution were true.  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.  Just as the number of E. coli present in your gut will not tell us your birthday or the time of your last use of an antibiotic, so human population size is decoupled from when Homo sapiens arose, or even when a bottleneck may have occurred.

Fourth, 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.
 
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.  Human history does not record a global flood.  Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood.  Geological evidence shows no sign of a global flood.  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.
 
In short, the SciCre population argument fails on many different criteria.  Honest creationists should eschew its use.

===

None of your links show anyone thinking that continuous, constant exponential growth is an expected feature of any population. Why would you?

Why aren't people assigned an age based on the numbers of E. coli in their gut? If your reasoning was adequate, that ought to be an established forensic tool. It isn't. Ruminate on that.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 17 2011,06:56

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,01:18)
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,11:48)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,11:44)
     
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:00)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,22:39)
         
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,15:40)
         
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:56)
             
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)
               
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29)

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained.

Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at < http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html. >  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.  

Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground."


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, dear, cut and paste IDiot strikes again!  Ar-40 is not cosmogenic.  From the very page which your quoted material is from.

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your link dont work

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

because the software added the period at the end of the sentence to the link.  Not much of a problem-solver, are you?


[snip]

           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plus you are still ignoring the following:

Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32
Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways."

Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think a person who can't even tell if isotopes are stable or not and can't handle "formula-waving" are incapable of having a discussion of a technical paper that would require a critical appraisal of petrography.  The key concept which I am sure you never heard of is fractionation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was referring to the other 90% of Argon isotopes, which are radioactive, because I had been reading on the more popular Ar40/39Ar isochron; which btw also involves two radioisotopes 39K and 39Ar ( made by cosmic rays from 40Ar).  
< http://www.ees.nmt.edu/outside....ml#Prin >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you read the links I provided long ago, you would understand how the Ar-Ar method (which is another atypical isochron method, and seldom considered as an isochron method) compensates for this.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh and did you know that cosmic rays also produce 39K, 40K, 33Ar, 36Ar, 37Ar, 38Ar, 39Ar, and 41Ar, etc.. etc….  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fascinating. Most people that frantically Google to try to find information about dating at least come up with facts, even if those facts belie creationism.

You, OTOH, come up with lies. Where are you getting this crap from?

Right off the top of my head I can tell you that 40K is not cosmogenic. The other isotopes you mention, cosmogenic or not, are not relevant.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and I wouldn’t be surprised if the mysterious excesses of Ar40 was actually via cosmic rays too
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reality doesn't care what surprises you. 40Ar is not cosmogenic. The fact that so many K-Ar dates agree with other methods that are not sensitive to the initial amount of daughter isotope, and studies of modern-day lavas, proves that "excess argon" in quantities sufficient to be significant is a rare phenomenon.

We have a claim that isochron methods involve multiple radioisotopes... false except for Pb-Pb, which is a special case. We have a claim that the daughter products used in 99% of isochron methods are themselves unstable... false.  Now a claim that parent and daughter isotopes used in isochron dating are cosmogenic... false.

You just keep on going and going, don't you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh so my isochrons are atypical. Again, the A-A isochron that I listed is now more popular than yours.

Oh and go to google and do this: " cosmogenic 40k "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ar-Ar is a very widely used dating technique, and the results  can be plotted on an isochron diagram, but they seldom are. Ar-Ar is not typically thought of as an isochron method. If you do think of it as an isochron method it's an atypical isochron method, for several reasons you don't know and obviously can't learn.

I have no idea what you mean by "more popular than yours". Although Ar-Ar is widely used, and K-Ar isn't used much since the availability of Ar-Ar increased and its cost came down, U-Pb concordia-discordia is by far the most widely used method currently. That's not an isochron method. The results almost always agree with isochron method results.

I already googled "cosmogenic 40K". Got any relevant examples? (I.e. terrrestrial.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I have been reading that Rb-Sr is the most common
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed? Where have you been doing this reading?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and as with my earlier example, its not always a stable daughter isotope because 85Sr  is used to. What is really interesting though is that some so called stable isotopes like 87Sr have both stable and unstable variants. 87Sr can radioactively change back to either its parent or a different variant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here is an abstract on cosmogenic 40k but its split between two pages
< http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......5R.342N > < http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......00.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Irrelevant. Not terrestrial.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 17 2011,06:59

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,01:39)
 
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,12:09)
 
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,12:21)
     
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:13)
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plus you are still ignoring the following:

Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32
Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And those independent age determinations almost always result in confirming the isochron age. E.g. < Radiometric Ages of Some Early Archean and Related Rocks of the North Atlantic Craton > and < Radiometeric Dating Does Work! >.

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You still haven't figured out how sedimentary layers are dated. Repeating myself from page 27:

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well its not usually your so called stable alpha decaying isotopes.  Anyway though please do finally teach us why you think the radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks is so accurate.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sure. After you read my references and figure out what's going on.

Here's a hint. If sedimentary layer B is above igneous layer A which is 100 million years old and layer B is also below igneous layer C which is 90 million years old, and there's no signs of disturbance after deposition or solidification, how old is layer B?

And if igneous layer D cuts through all layers A and B, obviously by seeping into cracks and then solidifying, but doesn't cut through layer C and dates to 95 million years old, how old is layer B?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


All you are doing is "saying" the sedimentary rocks are uncontaminated and dated accurately, which doesnt make it so. Do you at least agree that sedimentary rocks would have a lot more mixing and isotope contamination than igneous rocks?

What references did you ever give on Sedimentary isochrons?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wotta maroon. Can't even read a simple paragraph and extract the meaning. No, I'm not just saying the sedimentary rocks are uncontaminated and dated accurately. I'm not saying that they are uncontaminated, contamination of sedimentary rocks doesn't matter. I'm saying they are dated accurately for the reasons I explained twice.

"Mixing and isotope contamination" in sedimentary rocks is irrelevant although mixing is likely to be less in sedimentary rocks and isotopic contamination is probably about the same as in igneous rocks.

Few if any isochrons are available for sedimentary rocks, because most sedimentary rocks are dated by stratigraphic position relative to igneous rocks, as I already explained twice. Once immediately above.

I dug up one example of directly dating sedimentary rock by an isochron method: < Sm-Nd isotopic dating of Proterozoic clay material: An example from the Francevillian sedimentary series, Gabon >.

I'm saying the igneous rocks are dated accurately, for reasons explained in detail in the references I've given you so many times. Contamination and initial daughter are accounted for in modern methods.  We conclude from theory and experiment that decay rates are sufficiently constant as to not cause any significant errors.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Those concordant dates were done mostly by the same people and the national center of pseudoscience TAX makes my skin crawl.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Didn't look at the links, did ya? Those concordant dates were mostly done by different people, and not by a national center of anything.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again there is no way to know for sure the origin of the daughter isotopes
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, yes there is, as detailed in the various references I've given already.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The whole reason that sedimenatary rocks are not usually radiometrically dated is because they are mixed with a vast array of sedimentary stuff. Yes they are dated by index fossils but then the index fossils are in turn dated by the sedimentary rocks?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, as I've pointed out several times. They are dated by their relationship to igneous layers.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 17 2011,07:02

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 17 2011,04:43)
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,00:39)
The whole reason that sedimenatary rocks are not usually radiometrically dated is because they are mixed with a vast array of sedimentary stuff. Yes they are dated by index fossils but then the index fossils are in turn dated by the sedimentary rocks? Thats circular reasoning of the most grotesque kind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I fully agree: date the layers by the fossils, and then date the fossils by the layers is a grotesque example of circular reasoning. Fortunately, it's also a grotesquely inaccurate Creationist caricature of what real scientists do when they work on figuring out how old rocks are, so the actual dates provided by real scientists are not rendered invalid by that caricature.
The evidence of, well, pretty much everything you've posted here, suggests that you have no desire to learn more about what real scientists do when they work on figuring out how old rocks are, forastero. If you ever change your mind about that, lots of people here will be happy to help you remedy your ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think the probability of a Poe is a little over 50%. Yeah, I know that there's no creationist parody so stupid that no real creationist espouses it, but this guy makes the average YEC look like Einstein.
Posted by: JonF on Nov. 17 2011,07:18

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,01:18)
?  
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,11:48)
     
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,11:44)
         
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:00)
      ?  
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,22:39)
             
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,15:40)
          ?  
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:56)
              ?  
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)
                   
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29)

It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined

Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained.

Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at < http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html. >  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.  

Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground."


---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, dear, cut and paste IDiot strikes again!  Ar-40 is not cosmogenic.  From the very page which your quoted material is from.

            ?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Your link dont work

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

because the software added the period at the end of the sentence to the link.  Not much of a problem-solver, are you?


[snip]

               

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Plus you are still ignoring the following:

Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32
Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways."

Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I think a person who can't even tell if isotopes are stable or not and can't handle "formula-waving" are incapable of having a discussion of a technical paper that would require a critical appraisal of petrography.  The key concept which I am sure you never heard of is fractionation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was referring to the other 90% of Argon isotopes, which are radioactive, because I had been reading on the more popular Ar40/39Ar isochron; which btw also involves two radioisotopes 39K and 39Ar ( made by cosmic rays from 40Ar).  
< http://www.ees.nmt.edu/outside....ml#Prin >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you read the links I provided long ago, you would understand how the Ar-Ar method (which is another atypical isochron method, and seldom considered as an isochron method) compensates for this.
        ?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh and did you know that cosmic rays also produce 39K, 40K, 33Ar, 36Ar, 37Ar, 38Ar, 39Ar, and 41Ar, etc.. etc….  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fascinating. Most people that frantically Google to try to find information about dating at least come up with facts, even if those facts belie creationism.

You, OTOH, come up with lies. Where are you getting this crap from?

Right off the top of my head I can tell you that 40K is not cosmogenic. The other isotopes you mention, cosmogenic or not, are not relevant.

        ?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and I wouldn’t be surprised if the mysterious excesses of Ar40 was actually via cosmic rays too
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Reality doesn't care what surprises you. 40Ar is not cosmogenic. The fact that so many K-Ar dates agree with other methods that are not sensitive to the initial amount of daughter isotope, and studies of modern-day lavas, proves that "excess argon" in quantities sufficient to be significant is a rare phenomenon.

We have a claim that isochron methods involve multiple radioisotopes... false except for Pb-Pb, which is a special case. We have a claim that the daughter products used in 99% of isochron methods are themselves unstable... false.  Now a claim that parent and daughter isotopes used in isochron dating are cosmogenic... false.

You just keep on going and going, don't you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh so my isochrons are atypical. Again, the A-A isochron that I listed is now more popular than yours.

Oh and go to google and do this: " cosmogenic 40k "
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ar-Ar is a very widely used dating technique, and the results  can be plotted on an isochron diagram, but they seldom are. Ar-Ar is not typically thought of as an isochron method. If you do think of it as an isochron method it's an atypical isochron method, for several reasons you don't know and obviously can't learn.

I have no idea what you mean by "more popular than yours". Although Ar-Ar is widely used, and K-Ar isn't used much since the availability of Ar-Ar increased and its cost came down, U-Pb concordia-discordia is by far the most widely used method currently. That's not an isochron method. The results almost always agree with isochron method results.

I already googled "cosmogenic 40K". Got any relevant examples? (I.e. terrrestrial.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I have been reading that Rb-Sr is the most common and as with my earlier example, its not always a stable daughter isotope because 85Sr  is used to. What is really interesting though is that some so called stable isotopes like 87Sr have both stable and unstable variants. 87Sr can radioactively change back to either its parent or a different variant.

Here is an abstract on cosmogenic 40k but its split between two pages
< http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......5R.342N > < http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......00.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


?  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The history of geochronology can be roughly divided
into three periods:

  • a period of single-sample K-Ar and Rb-Sr mineral or whole-rock age determinations;
  • a time when most ages were determined with the help of Rb-Sr and Pb-Pb whole-rock isochrons and multi-grain zircon U-Pb isotope data;
  • the present, where ‘single’ zircon U-Pb data are the preferred method to obtain rock ages.

    These stages in the development of radiometric dating
    methods partly overlap in time, and each has yielded
    very significant contributions to the knowledge
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    F. Kalsbeek, < "Age Determination of Precambrian Rocks from Greenland: Past and Present," > Geol. Greenland Surv. Bull. 176, 55 (1997).

     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I do not do Rb-Sr geochronology myself, and should point out that it is a largely outmoded method for almost all modern geochronologic problems, since either Ar-Ar or zircon (monazite, titanite, baddeleyite...) U/Pb can almost always do better in terms of both accuracy and precision...

    As an example (see attached figure), for a review of an article a few months ago I did a quick literature search of articles presenting new geochronology (excluding rocks of Pleistocene age. for which methods such as radiocarbon, uranium series, optical luminescence.... are important) in a variety of different journals (Geology, Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., Canadian Jour. Earth Sci., Contrib. Mineralogy & Petrology) for the past 5 years. Of the 164 articles I selected at random, more than 80% were done by either U-Pb (54%) or Ar-Ar/ K-Ar (30%). with less than 5% each were done by Rb-Sr or Sm -Nd. In other words, both Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd are now minor methods in modern geochronology (though they remain extremely important in studies of petrology and crustal evolution).
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Ludwig, K.R., personal communication, 3 Mar 2003. Note that "Ar" includes both K-Ar and Ar-Ar.
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 17 2011,07:19

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,23:27)
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2011,08:31)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:19)
    The same the Flood piled up over 2200 feet in Carboniferous Texas


    THE MISSISSIPPIAN BARNETT FORMATION:
    A SOURCE-ROCK, SEAL, AND RESERVOIR PRODUCED BY EARLY CARBONIFEROUS FLOODING OF THE TEXAS CRATON

    < http://www.beg.utexas.edu/resprog....ter.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    So, 2200 = 17,000?

    So, are you claiming here that the strata that is the flood is from the carboniferous?

    So, we should start looking for 17,000 feet worth of coal somewhere in the carboniferous period?

    While, we're talking, please discuss the Green River Formation and the annual layers that result in 6 million years of history in that one formation.

    I'd like to know if that is a pre-flood, flood, or post-flood strata.

    Thanks
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Again, are you ever gonna tell me where this 17,000 ft of sediment was found?

    Again, the carboniferous represents strata of hydrocarbonated fossil fuels caused by Flooded and buried rainforests.

    Likewise, the Green River formation is a remnant of the great the Niobrara Sea, which is itself a remnant of the Flood
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    READ what we Fucking write dude.  Jesus you're dumb.

    I've mentioned it twice and given you the link to it.

    Interesting, so if the Green River formation occurred during the year of the flood, then please do explain (including citations of experimental evidence) of how 42 layers of siltstone appeared EVERY SINGLE DAY, while in a raging flood.

    It might interest you to know that the Green River Formation is EOCENE in age... which is a couple hundred million years AFTER the Carboniferous.

    So, which is the flood strata again, carboniferous, really?  That's your claim?  Are you sure?  Is that your final answer?

    yes/no
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 17 2011,07:23

    Quote (JonF @ Nov. 17 2011,08:02)
    I think the probability of a Poe is a little over 50%. Yeah, I know that there's no creationist parody so stupid that no real creationist espouses it, but this guy makes the average YEC look like Einstein.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Probability of Bozo GoP= 1

    now, probability that Bozo GoP is a dumbfuck also = 1

    probability that he will muster the courage to engage the facts you have presented approaches the probability that he can tell the difference between his lover sucking one strange dick or sucking 227,000 strange dicks
    Posted by: blipey on Nov. 17 2011,08:05

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,23:11)
    Quote (blipey @ Nov. 16 2011,11:38)
    Hey forastero,

    I noticed that you still have absolutely no idea where your growth rate comes from.  I find it hard to believe that a rational person could stand behind an equation that includes variables that he does't even understand.

    Fortunately, you aren't a rational person.  However, you could take a first step in that direction by tell us how you derived THE GROWTH RATE IN YOUR POPULATION EQUATION.


    Thanks.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    It seems that the growth rate that I provided is about average compared to other estimates prehistoric and/or hunter gather estimates listed below. Thus, if we used yall's long ages, the populations would be vastly higher and man could grind a grave just about anywhere he dug

    < 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 >

    < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >

    < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    So, no idea at all?  You're just 100% clueless as to how the growth rate in your equation is derived?  I mean, I was really sure this was he case but since I'm so nice I was trying to give you an out.  Too bad you ran into the wall.

    However, as I promised to keep asking as long as you kept not answering:

    How is the growth rate in your population equation determined?  I don't care what the number is (as I've said many times).  I don't care how the number compares with other numbers (as I've said).  I want to know how you derived this number.

    I don't have a problem asking again (you might look at the FTK thread for confirmation).
    Posted by: nmgirl on Nov. 17 2011,14:06

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:19)
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2011,12:53)
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2011,09:13)
    I still want to know where to look for the flood material.  

    Interestingly, if forastero were to pick a coal bed between two igneous layers, then we could date that coal bed within a fairly tight range.

    What do you think forastero?  What do you estimate the likelihood of us finding a coal bed that can be dated to within 50,000 years of the present time?  What range of error in dating techniques would be required to get that coal bed to your estimate of error?

    And don't give me any guff about geological columns and "I didn't say anything about coal beds".  You said it, you claimed it, these are the consequences.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I think I'm hurt.  Forastero skipped right past my question.  sigh... how will I ever go on?

    BTW: I still want to know how a global flood can carve a meandering channel in limestone and then deposit 17,000 feet of sediment on top of it.

    Shall I add this and the varve question to your outstanding list?  I know you'll explain exactly what exploded to cause the Big Bang any time now.  Oh, and don't forget the cal bed that covers the Earth.  I really want to know about that one.  

    Think about it a coal bed that's on the order of 17,000 feet thick and covers the entire Earth.  Talk about being a billionaire.  Just tell me where to look forastero.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    The same the Flood piled up over 2200 feet in Carboniferous Texas


    THE MISSISSIPPIAN BARNETT FORMATION:
    A SOURCE-ROCK, SEAL, AND RESERVOIR PRODUCED BY EARLY CARBONIFEROUS FLOODING OF THE TEXAS CRATON

    < http://www.beg.utexas.edu/resprog....ter.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    forastero, i finally had time to read the paper on the Barnett shale.  It is obvious that you didn't read it and I quote from the conclusion:
    "the section is composed primarily of siliciclastic mudrocks of the
    Barnett Formation. These rocks were deposited in below wave base conditions in a deep
    water platform to slope setting."  These rocks ain't no flood deposits.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 17 2011,14:53

    Run, Little Bunny, run!
    Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Nov. 17 2011,15:40

    Quote (nmgirl @ Nov. 17 2011,14:06)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:19)
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2011,12:53)
     
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2011,09:13)
    I still want to know where to look for the flood material.  

    Interestingly, if forastero were to pick a coal bed between two igneous layers, then we could date that coal bed within a fairly tight range.

    What do you think forastero?  What do you estimate the likelihood of us finding a coal bed that can be dated to within 50,000 years of the present time?  What range of error in dating techniques would be required to get that coal bed to your estimate of error?

    And don't give me any guff about geological columns and "I didn't say anything about coal beds".  You said it, you claimed it, these are the consequences.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I think I'm hurt.  Forastero skipped right past my question.  sigh... how will I ever go on?

    BTW: I still want to know how a global flood can carve a meandering channel in limestone and then deposit 17,000 feet of sediment on top of it.

    Shall I add this and the varve question to your outstanding list?  I know you'll explain exactly what exploded to cause the Big Bang any time now.  Oh, and don't forget the cal bed that covers the Earth.  I really want to know about that one.  

    Think about it a coal bed that's on the order of 17,000 feet thick and covers the entire Earth.  Talk about being a billionaire.  Just tell me where to look forastero.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    The same the Flood piled up over 2200 feet in Carboniferous Texas


    THE MISSISSIPPIAN BARNETT FORMATION:
    A SOURCE-ROCK, SEAL, AND RESERVOIR PRODUCED BY EARLY CARBONIFEROUS FLOODING OF THE TEXAS CRATON

    < http://www.beg.utexas.edu/resprog....ter.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    forastero, i finally had time to read the paper on the Barnett shale.  It is obvious that you didn't read it and I quote from the conclusion:
    "the section is composed primarily of siliciclastic mudrocks of the
    Barnett Formation. These rocks were deposited in below wave base conditions in a deep
    water platform to slope setting."  These rocks ain't no flood deposits.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    "BELOW WAVE"  "DEEP WATER" TEH FLUD!! :angry:
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 17 2011,20:37

    Hide, Little Bunny, hide!
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 17 2011,20:41

    turns out that the difference, between regular old ignernt and dumber than all hells, aint quite as fine as you'd like to have thunked that it was, aint it
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 17 2011,22:14

    Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 17 2011,03:43)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,00:39)
    The whole reason that sedimenatary rocks are not usually radiometrically dated is because they are mixed with a vast array of sedimentary stuff. Yes they are dated by index fossils but then the index fossils are in turn dated by the sedimentary rocks? Thats circular reasoning of the most grotesque kind.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I fully agree: date the layers by the fossils, and then date the fossils by the layers is a grotesque example of circular reasoning. Fortunately, it's also a grotesquely inaccurate Creationist caricature of what real scientists do when they work on figuring out how old rocks are, so the actual dates provided by real scientists are not rendered invalid by that caricature.
    The evidence of, well, pretty much everything you've posted here, suggests that you have no desire to learn more about what real scientists do when they work on figuring out how old rocks are, forastero. If you ever change your mind about that, lots of people here will be happy to help you remedy your ignorance.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Okay then, when is someone here finally going to explain exactly how they date those index critters?

    I mean they are not hardly ever found in igneous rocks and even your own so called radiomagic expert doent date sedimentary rocks with radiometric dating so......
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 17 2011,22:34

    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.



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Here is an abstract on cosmogenic 40k but its split between two pages
    < http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......5R.342N > < http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......00.html >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Irrelevant. Not terrestrial.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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

    Cosmic rays do effect terrestrial isotopes
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 17 2011,22:36

    Quote (JonF @ Nov. 17 2011,06:59)
    No, as I've pointed out several times. They are dated by their relationship to igneous layers.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I dont recall that but please do elaborate
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 17 2011,22:45

    Quote (JonF @ Nov. 17 2011,07:18)
    ?    

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    The history of geochronology can be roughly divided
    into three periods:

  • a period of single-sample K-Ar and Rb-Sr mineral or whole-rock age determinations;
  • a time when most ages were determined with the help of Rb-Sr and Pb-Pb whole-rock isochrons and multi-grain zircon U-Pb isotope data;
  • the present, where ‘single’ zircon U-Pb data are the preferred method to obtain rock ages.

    These stages in the development of radiometric dating
    methods partly overlap in time, and each has yielded
    very significant contributions to the knowledge
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    F. Kalsbeek, < "Age Determination of Precambrian Rocks from Greenland: Past and Present," > Geol. Greenland Surv. Bull. 176, 55 (1997).

       

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I do not do Rb-Sr geochronology myself, and should point out that it is a largely outmoded method for almost all modern geochronologic problems, since either Ar-Ar or zircon (monazite, titanite, baddeleyite...) U/Pb can almost always do better in terms of both accuracy and precision...

    As an example (see attached figure), for a review of an article a few months ago I did a quick literature search of articles presenting new geochronology (excluding rocks of Pleistocene age. for which methods such as radiocarbon, uranium series, optical luminescence.... are important) in a variety of different journals (Geology, Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., Canadian Jour. Earth Sci., Contrib. Mineralogy & Petrology) for the past 5 years. Of the 164 articles I selected at random, more than 80% were done by either U-Pb (54%) or Ar-Ar/ K-Ar (30%). with less than 5% each were done by Rb-Sr or Sm -Nd. In other words, both Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd are now minor methods in modern geochronology (though they remain extremely important in studies of petrology and crustal evolution).
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Ludwig, K.R., personal communication, 3 Mar 2003. Note that "Ar" includes both K-Ar and Ar-Ar.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Not that I actually agree but Interesting, especially considering that Rb-Sr is about the only isochron attempted with sedimentary rocks
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 17 2011,22:47

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,22:34)
     
    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.

       

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Here is an abstract on cosmogenic 40k but its split between two pages
    < http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......5R.342N > < http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......00.html >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Irrelevant. Not terrestrial.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    You said the following was an excellent table < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium >

    Well look at the daughter isotopes of 87Sr


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    There are no daughter isotopes of Sr-87 which comes from Rb-87 because that Sr-87 is stable.  Jebus you're stupid.  Sr m means metastable, but is not formed from Rb-87, so the fact that it decays has no measurable effect on Rb-Sr isochron dating.
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 17 2011,22:51

    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2011,07:19)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,23:27)
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2011,08:31)
     
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:19)
    The same the Flood piled up over 2200 feet in Carboniferous Texas


    THE MISSISSIPPIAN BARNETT FORMATION:
    A SOURCE-ROCK, SEAL, AND RESERVOIR PRODUCED BY EARLY CARBONIFEROUS FLOODING OF THE TEXAS CRATON

    < http://www.beg.utexas.edu/resprog....ter.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    So, 2200 = 17,000?

    So, are you claiming here that the strata that is the flood is from the carboniferous?

    So, we should start looking for 17,000 feet worth of coal somewhere in the carboniferous period?

    While, we're talking, please discuss the Green River Formation and the annual layers that result in 6 million years of history in that one formation.

    I'd like to know if that is a pre-flood, flood, or post-flood strata.

    Thanks
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Again, are you ever gonna tell me where this 17,000 ft of sediment was found?

    Again, the carboniferous represents strata of hydrocarbonated fossil fuels caused by Flooded and buried rainforests.

    Likewise, the Green River formation is a remnant of the great the Niobrara Sea, which is itself a remnant of the Flood
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    READ what we Fucking write dude.  Jesus you're dumb.

    I've mentioned it twice and given you the link to it.

    Interesting, so if the Green River formation occurred during the year of the flood, then please do explain (including citations of experimental evidence) of how 42 layers of siltstone appeared EVERY SINGLE DAY, while in a raging flood.

    It might interest you to know that the Green River Formation is EOCENE in age... which is a couple hundred million years AFTER the Carboniferous.

    So, which is the flood strata again, carboniferous, really?  That's your claim?  Are you sure?  Is that your final answer?

    yes/no
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    What page is the link for the 17000 ft

    Again the carbiniferous is one of many flood strata

    So when you gonna list these geologic columns?

    Again the Eocene dates are wrong like all of the rest
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 17 2011,22:56

    Quote (blipey @ Nov. 17 2011,08:05)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,23:11)
    Quote (blipey @ Nov. 16 2011,11:38)
    Hey forastero,

    I noticed that you still have absolutely no idea where your growth rate comes from.  I find it hard to believe that a rational person could stand behind an equation that includes variables that he does't even understand.

    Fortunately, you aren't a rational person.  However, you could take a first step in that direction by tell us how you derived THE GROWTH RATE IN YOUR POPULATION EQUATION.


    Thanks.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    It seems that the growth rate that I provided is about average compared to other estimates prehistoric and/or hunter gather estimates listed below. Thus, if we used yall's long ages, the populations would be vastly higher and man could grind a grave just about anywhere he dug

    < 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 >

    < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >

    < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    So, no idea at all?  You're just 100% clueless as to how the growth rate in your equation is derived?  I mean, I was really sure this was he case but since I'm so nice I was trying to give you an out.  Too bad you ran into the wall.

    However, as I promised to keep asking as long as you kept not answering:

    How is the growth rate in your population equation determined?  I don't care what the number is (as I've said many times).  I don't care how the number compares with other numbers (as I've said).  I want to know how you derived this number.

    I don't have a problem asking again (you might look at the FTK thread for confirmation).
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Or maybe you dont like the guesstimates of my links because you suffer from grandiose illusions of  pseudoimpericism
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 17 2011,22:58

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,22:14)
    Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 17 2011,03:43)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,00:39)
    The whole reason that sedimenatary rocks are not usually radiometrically dated is because they are mixed with a vast array of sedimentary stuff. Yes they are dated by index fossils but then the index fossils are in turn dated by the sedimentary rocks? Thats circular reasoning of the most grotesque kind.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I fully agree: date the layers by the fossils, and then date the fossils by the layers is a grotesque example of circular reasoning. Fortunately, it's also a grotesquely inaccurate Creationist caricature of what real scientists do when they work on figuring out how old rocks are, so the actual dates provided by real scientists are not rendered invalid by that caricature.
    The evidence of, well, pretty much everything you've posted here, suggests that you have no desire to learn more about what real scientists do when they work on figuring out how old rocks are, forastero. If you ever change your mind about that, lots of people here will be happy to help you remedy your ignorance.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Okay then, when is someone here finally going to explain exactly how they date those index critters?

    I mean they are not hardly ever found in igneous rocks and even your own so called radiomagic expert doent date sedimentary rocks with radiometric dating so......
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    This has been explained to you at least 3 times in this thread.  Please tell us why you don't listen?

    First, index fossils do not 'date' a strata.  They are used to tell the relative time periods involved. (i.e. strata A is older than strata B because A has conodonts and B has mammal teeth).

    To determine the actual age RANGE you have to find igneous rocks in layers above and below the sed layer under study.

    Now, listen.  This is important.

    Index fossils are called that because they are A) easy to identify and B) found ALL OVER THE WORLD IN THE SAME STRATA.

    So even if strata B doesn't have an igneous layer on top of it in N. America, it will in India.  It's a concept called stratigraphy and it's worth several junior to graduate level courses.  If fact, as I have mentioned, oil geologists use these concepts ALL the time to make their parent company TONS of money.  Your concepts don't make anyone anything (except give me a headache occasionally).

    Now, here is a brief ASCII lesson in strat.


    A........................A...........................A.........................A
    B.......................B.........................................................
    C.....C...............C.........................................................C
    D........................D..........................D...........................D
    .................................................................E................E
    F........................F.........................................................

    A is the surface rock and each letter represents a strata.  If there is no letter, then there is none of that strata in that bore hole.  If you don't follow this, then don't assume, ask questions... and don't put words in my mouth.  Listen.

    A is recent non-lithified sediment
    B is volcanic ash
    C is silt stone
    D is limestone
    E is volcanic ash
    F is basalt bedrock

    Now, do you agree that B is more recent than C and that D is more recent that E?  If not, then explain why, because this is the fundamental basis of geology.  If you don't agree with this, then you are unteachable.

    Now, you can date B and E.

    Since C exists in areas with both B and E, then B and E give the upper limits and lower limits of the age that C can be.

    Since C is a nice siltstone, it has some great index fossils.  Since those fossils exist through C, then we KNOW that the C underneath B and the C above E are the same.  

    Therefore, we can put an age range both on layer C AND the index fossils within it.

    I have little hope that this will get through.

    BTW: You are saying that the Carboniferous is the deposited layer of the great flood, yes?  That is still your claim, yes?
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 17 2011,23:00

    Quote (nmgirl @ Nov. 17 2011,14:06)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:19)
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2011,12:53)
     
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2011,09:13)
    I still want to know where to look for the flood material.  

    Interestingly, if forastero were to pick a coal bed between two igneous layers, then we could date that coal bed within a fairly tight range.

    What do you think forastero?  What do you estimate the likelihood of us finding a coal bed that can be dated to within 50,000 years of the present time?  What range of error in dating techniques would be required to get that coal bed to your estimate of error?

    And don't give me any guff about geological columns and "I didn't say anything about coal beds".  You said it, you claimed it, these are the consequences.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I think I'm hurt.  Forastero skipped right past my question.  sigh... how will I ever go on?

    BTW: I still want to know how a global flood can carve a meandering channel in limestone and then deposit 17,000 feet of sediment on top of it.

    Shall I add this and the varve question to your outstanding list?  I know you'll explain exactly what exploded to cause the Big Bang any time now.  Oh, and don't forget the cal bed that covers the Earth.  I really want to know about that one.  

    Think about it a coal bed that's on the order of 17,000 feet thick and covers the entire Earth.  Talk about being a billionaire.  Just tell me where to look forastero.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    The same the Flood piled up over 2200 feet in Carboniferous Texas


    THE MISSISSIPPIAN BARNETT FORMATION:
    A SOURCE-ROCK, SEAL, AND RESERVOIR PRODUCED BY EARLY CARBONIFEROUS FLOODING OF THE TEXAS CRATON

    < http://www.beg.utexas.edu/resprog....ter.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    forastero, i finally had time to read the paper on the Barnett shale.  It is obvious that you didn't read it and I quote from the conclusion:
    "the section is composed primarily of siliciclastic mudrocks of the
    Barnett Formation. These rocks were deposited in below wave base conditions in a deep
    water platform to slope setting."  These rocks ain't no flood deposits.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Maybe geology aint your fancy but the first sentence of the abstract says:

    "The Early Carboniferous (Mississippian) was a time of crustal downwarping and flooding of southern Texas region. Mississippian facies documenting this flooding include a basal, updip, shallow to deep water carbonate succession and an overlying, downdip, deep water, fine grained siliciclastic mudrock succession"
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 17 2011,23:10

    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2011,19:47)
    < http://scienceblogs.com/startsw....e_u.php >

    Boom goes the dynamite.  ANOTHER (as in, 'yes, more than one') prediction of the Big Bang theory confirmed by two independent experiments.

    What predictions have your notions made and have they been confirmed by multiple independent tests?

    But don't let that stop you.

    BTW: What exploded (hint, read the link) to start the Big Bang?

    BTW2: Is the Carboniferous (all of it) the flood strata?  yes or no
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Your author’s cone-shaped  or parabolic explosive expansion is no longer all that popular and has been exchanged for a model that explodes and in all directions. He does however follow the basic premise of disorder leading to the orderly universe.  For instance, his use of the nuclear fusion reaction of deuterium with tritium to make helium are virtually the same seemingly chaotic collisions that take place continuously  in the sun and stars  and also for the production of nuclear weapons..

    Interestingly, this fusion reaction in the otherwise stable deuterium nucleus  also involves manipulating its proton and neutron; and is initiated by either it’s coulomb barrier being overcome by thermo nuclear heat or via quantum tunneling.


    The “primeval atom” as Lemaître called it—which disintegrated in an explosion, giving rise to space and time and the expansion of the universe that continues to this day. Lemaître himself described his theory as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation"; it became better known as the "Big Bang theory," a term coined by Fred Hoyle . Lemaître's proposed that cosmic rays may in fact be the left over artifacts of the initial "explosion." Einstein regarded his initial rejection of Lemaitre's work as "the biggest blunder of my life" but would later say of it: “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”

    Explosions always lead to disorder but in this case a super natural event  lead to order while still following the rules of  momentum and entropy; like a baby who develops in a orderly direction, it eventually starts to decay and part of that decay is effected by positive and negative thinking and acting,
    Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 17 2011,23:13

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,22:51)
     
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2011,07:19)
     
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,23:27)
       
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2011,08:31)
       
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:19)
    The same the Flood piled up over 2200 feet in Carboniferous Texas


    THE MISSISSIPPIAN BARNETT FORMATION:
    A SOURCE-ROCK, SEAL, AND RESERVOIR PRODUCED BY EARLY CARBONIFEROUS FLOODING OF THE TEXAS CRATON

    < http://www.beg.utexas.edu/resprog....ter.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    So, 2200 = 17,000?

    So, are you claiming here that the strata that is the flood is from the carboniferous?

    So, we should start looking for 17,000 feet worth of coal somewhere in the carboniferous period?

    While, we're talking, please discuss the Green River Formation and the annual layers that result in 6 million years of history in that one formation.

    I'd like to know if that is a pre-flood, flood, or post-flood strata.

    Thanks
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Again, are you ever gonna tell me where this 17,000 ft of sediment was found?

    Again, the carboniferous represents strata of hydrocarbonated fossil fuels caused by Flooded and buried rainforests.

    Likewise, the Green River formation is a remnant of the great the Niobrara Sea, which is itself a remnant of the Flood
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    READ what we Fucking write dude.  Jesus you're dumb.

    I've mentioned it twice and given you the link to it.

    Interesting, so if the Green River formation occurred during the year of the flood, then please do explain (including citations of experimental evidence) of how 42 layers of siltstone appeared EVERY SINGLE DAY, while in a raging flood.

    It might interest you to know that the Green River Formation is EOCENE in age... which is a couple hundred million years AFTER the Carboniferous.

    So, which is the flood strata again, carboniferous, really?  That's your claim?  Are you sure?  Is that your final answer?

    yes/no
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    What page is the link for the 17000 ft

    Again the carbiniferous is one of many flood strata

    So when you gonna list these geologic columns?

    Again the Eocene dates are wrong like all of the rest
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    < TalkOrigins Archive FAQ on the geologic column >

     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This well was drilled just west of the outcrop of the Golden Valley formation and begins in the Tertiary Fort Union Formation. The various horizons described above were encountered at the following depths (Fm=formation; Grp=Group; Lm=Limestone):

    Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
    Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet
    Cretaceous Mowry Fm........................... 5370 feet
    Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet
    Jurassic Rierdon Fm............................6690 feet
    Triassic Spearfish Fm..........................7325 feet
    Permian Opeche Fm..............................7740 feet
    Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm........................7990 feet
    Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm.........................8245 feet
    Mississippian Otter Fm.........................8440 feet
    Mississippian Kibbey Lm........................8780 feet
    Mississippian Charles Fm.......................8945 feet
    Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm................9775 feet
    Mississippian Lodgepole Fm....................10255 feet
    Devonian Bakken Fm............................11085 feet
    Devonian Birdbear Fm..........................11340 feet
    Devonian Duperow Fm...........................11422 feet
    Devonian Souris River Fm......................11832 feet
    Devonian Dawson Bay Fm........................12089 feet
    Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet
    Devonian Winnipegosis Grp.....................12310 feet
    Silurian Interlake Fm.........................12539 feet
    Ordovician Stonewall Fm.......................13250 feet
    Ordovician Red River Dolomite.................13630 feet
    Ordovician Winnipeg Grp.......................14210 feet
    Ordovician Black Island Fm....................14355 feet
    Cambrian Deadwood Fm..........................14445 feet
    Precambrian...................................14945 feet

    Conclusion

    What does all this mean?

    First, as I have noted before, the concept quite prevalent among some Christians that the geologic column does not exist is quite wrong. Morris and Parker (1987, p. 163) write:
    Now, the geologic column is an idea, not an actual series of rock layers. Nowhere do we find the complete sequence.
    They are wrong. You just saw the whole column piled up in one place where one oil well can drill through it. Not only that, the entire geologic column is found in 25 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:

    The Ghadames Basin in Libya
    The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
    The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
    The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
    The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
    The Adana Basin in Turkey
    The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
    The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
    The Carpathian Basin in Poland
    The Baltic Basin in the USSR
    The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
    The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
    The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
    The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
    The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
    The Jiuxi Basin China
    The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
    The Tarim Basin China
    The Szechwan Basin China
    The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
    The Williston Basin in North Dakota
    The Tampico Embayment Mexico
    The Bogata Basin Colombia
    The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
    The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

    (Sources:
    Robertson Group, 1989;
    A.F. Trendall et al , editors, Geol. Surv. West. Australia Memoir 3, 1990, pp 382, 396;
    N.E. Haimla et al, The Geology of North America, Vol. L, DNAG volumes, 1990, p. 517)

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    The author, Glenn Morton, is an evangelical Christian and also a past contributor to various creationist publications.
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 17 2011,23:16

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,22:51)
    What page is the link for the 17000 ft

    Again the carbiniferous is one of many flood strata

    So when you gonna list these geologic columns?

    Again the Eocene dates are wrong like all of the rest
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    < http://home.entouch.net/dmd....ons.htm >

    sigh.

    No, there is no MANY flood strata.  I don't care about the little mini local floods.  Which is the strata laid down by the Flood of Noah that wiped out every living thing on the planet?  Is it carboniferous?  Is it a particular layer within the carboniferous?  You said it should be coal (or millions of dead things all over the world... flashback), so I'm going with that.  Is that correct?

    If the carboniferous is the great flood, then why can't we date those coals with carbon dating?  If the carboniferous is the great flood of 6,000 years ago (or less), then where did the hundreds of layers of coal deposits come from in sed layers that are miles above carboniferous layers.  And you are saying that superfine grained sediment that cannot settle in anything but stagnant water (how do we know it was stagnant water?  see below), can still form 47 unique rock layers PER DAY for the last 6000 years.

    Did you know (hah!) that the Green River is the largest oil shale bed in the world?  Do you know how oil shale forms (hah!)?  It's algae.  Yes, the lovely blue green algae that coats the bottom of nasty, stagnant lakes.  And somehow, this algae, managed to grow to cover some 65,000 square kilometers and then get buried in sediment, then grow again to cover 65,000 square kilometers, and again, and again, and again for several thousand layers... some 2000 feet thick... all in that flood of yours (or in the years after the flood).  Oh, and then it has to be slowly, gently heated and compacted... etc. etc. etc

    All either during a flood that covered them to a depth (minimum) of 17,000 feet.  Or it occurred all in the 6000 (or fewer) years since the flood.  Which?

    You keep saying these dates are wrong, but you can't show it.

    You can't explain why ALL dating methods give the same dates for the same rocks.  You can't explain where a 0.5% error somehow becomes a 2,770% error.  And you won't answer the simple question of "If radiometric dating showed evidence for a young Earth, would you accept it then?"

    If you want to make claims, then you must put up some kind of defense.
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 17 2011,23:18

    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 17 2011,22:47)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,22:34)
     
    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.

       

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Here is an abstract on cosmogenic 40k but its split between two pages
    < http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......5R.342N > < http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......00.html >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Irrelevant. Not terrestrial.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    You said the following was an excellent table < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium >

    Well look at the daughter isotopes of 87Sr


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    There are no daughter isotopes of Sr-87 which comes from Rb-87 because that Sr-87 is stable.  Jebus you're stupid.  Sr m means metastable, but is not formed from Rb-87, so the fact that it decays has no measurable effect on Rb-Sr isochron dating.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I notice that you avoided Jon's so called excellent link, which provides two daughter isotopes
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 17 2011,23:18

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,23:10)
    Explosions always lead to disorder but in this case a super natural event  lead to order while still following the rules of  momentum and entropy;
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    What exploded?
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 17 2011,23:27

    Here's the deal for, you have to explain everything that we have talked about and do so in an internally consistent way without resorting to miracles and you have to do it in such a way that can be observed.

    EVERYTHING we have talked about in this thread is explained by the way we look at the world through science.  Further, that same science makes predictions that have been verified (some of them) for several hundred years.

    The Big Bang theory makes a prediction that is confirmed in two separate, independent experiments.

    Radiometric dating is confirmed because, very simply, every valid test run on the same sample of rock, gives the same age.  These methods are independent. If there were some fundamental difference, then the date would not correlate.  Further, these dates are supported by other means.

    You cannot get around this simple fact.  You can hack away with your technobabble for years and it won't make any difference.  What are your notions that explain EVERYTHING we have talked about?

    Why are you scared to present those notions to the same level of scrutiny that you subject to ours?  (None of which is new BTW.)
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 17 2011,23:37

    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2011,23:16)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,22:51)
    What page is the link for the 17000 ft

    Again the carbiniferous is one of many flood strata

    So when you gonna list these geologic columns?

    Again the Eocene dates are wrong like all of the rest
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    < http://home.entouch.net/dmd........ons.htm >

    sigh.

    No, there is no MANY flood strata.  I don't care about the little mini local floods.  Which is the strata laid down by the Flood of Noah that wiped out every living thing on the planet?  Is it carboniferous?  Is it a particular layer within the carboniferous?  You said it should be coal (or millions of dead things all over the world... flashback), so I'm going with that.  Is that correct?

    If the carboniferous is the great flood, then why can't we date those coals with carbon dating?  If the carboniferous is the great flood of 6,000 years ago (or less), then where did the hundreds of layers of coal deposits come from in sed layers that are miles above carboniferous layers.  And you are saying that superfine grained sediment that cannot settle in anything but stagnant water (how do we know it was stagnant water?  see below), can still form 47 unique rock layers PER DAY for the last 6000 years.

    Did you know (hah!) that the Green River is the largest oil shale bed in the world?  Do you know how oil shale forms (hah!)?  It's algae.  Yes, the lovely blue green algae that coats the bottom of nasty, stagnant lakes.  And somehow, this algae, managed to grow to cover some 65,000 square kilometers and then get buried in sediment, then grow again to cover 65,000 square kilometers, and again, and again, and again for several thousand layers... some 2000 feet thick... all in that flood of yours (or in the years after the flood).  Oh, and then it has to be slowly, gently heated and compacted... etc. etc. etc

    All either during a flood that covered them to a depth (minimum) of 17,000 feet.  Or it occurred all in the 6000 (or fewer) years since the flood.  Which?

    You keep saying these dates are wrong, but you can't show it.

    You can't explain why ALL dating methods give the same dates for the same rocks.  You can't explain where a 0.5% error somehow becomes a 2,770% error.  And you won't answer the simple question of "If radiometric dating showed evidence for a young Earth, would you accept it then?"

    If you want to make claims, then you must put up some kind of defense.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Thanks for the link but all it sasys about the 17000' is: "The third picture I have is of an eroded surface in the Ordovician of China. This is due to the careful mapping of an erosional event on a three dimensional seismic volume. It is in the Tarim Basin in far western China and this erosional surface is buried 5200 meters (that is, 17,000 feet deep). It shows a branching drainage pattern as well. Such features could not have formed in the global flood in just a few years. The rock being eroded into is hard limestone.  That must be fresh water because sea water already has all the limestone it can hold dissolved within it.. The surface shown below has had thousands of feet of limestone removed by erosion and that would take time with numbers like this. It would take 100,000 years of constant rainfall to erode a ditch about 6 feet deep. Yet on this erosional surface taken from a sonogram of the earth, we find hundreds of feet of relief. Note also the branching channel patterns due to drainage on this picture. "

    We have seen that that erosion can happen very fast and what is his point concerning seawater? Drainage patterns on the higher periphery of the gouge could have developed later


    When I say flood, I mean the Flood but then why do you insist that a major flood only creates one strata, especially after I showed you how lots of strata can develop from even a one-day event at Mount St Helens?
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 17 2011,23:45

    Oh btw, coal does have c14 but of course that one of the few time y'all cry "contamination!"
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 18 2011,00:39

    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2011,23:27)
    Here's the deal for, you have to explain everything that we have talked about and do so in an internally consistent way without resorting to miracles and you have to do it in such a way that can be observed.

    EVERYTHING we have talked about in this thread is explained by the way we look at the world through science.  Further, that same science makes predictions that have been verified (some of them) for several hundred years.

    The Big Bang theory makes a prediction that is confirmed in two separate, independent experiments.

    Radiometric dating is confirmed because, very simply, every valid test run on the same sample of rock, gives the same age.  These methods are independent. If there were some fundamental difference, then the date would not correlate.  Further, these dates are supported by other means.

    You cannot get around this simple fact.  You can hack away with your technobabble for years and it won't make any difference.  What are your notions that explain EVERYTHING we have talked about?

    Why are you scared to present those notions to the same level of scrutiny that you subject to ours?  (None of which is new BTW.)
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Practice what you preach and  quit yall's pantheistic creationism with all its mystical mutationology, radiomagic wands, crystal ball chronologies, and ape animisms to study some season of the niche spaghetti monsters made outa of a fountain of soup and cosmic rays from the heavens
    Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 18 2011,01:23

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,22:39)
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2011,23:27)
    Here's the deal for, you have to explain everything that we have talked about and do so in an internally consistent way without resorting to miracles and you have to do it in such a way that can be observed.

    EVERYTHING we have talked about in this thread is explained by the way we look at the world through science.  Further, that same science makes predictions that have been verified (some of them) for several hundred years.

    The Big Bang theory makes a prediction that is confirmed in two separate, independent experiments.

    Radiometric dating is confirmed because, very simply, every valid test run on the same sample of rock, gives the same age.  These methods are independent. If there were some fundamental difference, then the date would not correlate.  Further, these dates are supported by other means.

    You cannot get around this simple fact.  You can hack away with your technobabble for years and it won't make any difference.  What are your notions that explain EVERYTHING we have talked about?

    Why are you scared to present those notions to the same level of scrutiny that you subject to ours?  (None of which is new BTW.)
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Practice what you preach and  quit yall's pantheistic creationism with all its mystical mutationology, radiomagic wands, crystal ball chronologies, and ape animisms to study some season of the niche spaghetti monsters made outa of a fountain of soup and cosmic rays from the heavens
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I suggest not posting while drunk, muppet.
    Posted by: Quack on Nov. 18 2011,03:16



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    pantheistic creationism with all its mystical mutationology, radiomagic wands, crystal ball chronologies, and ape animisms to study some season of the niche spaghetti monsters made outa of a fountain of soup and cosmic rays from the heavens
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    At last, someone to cast light on the fallacy of methodological naturalism.

    Only Children and Drunkards speak the truth.
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 18 2011,03:41

    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2011,22:58)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,22:14)
    Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 17 2011,03:43)
     
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,00:39)
    The whole reason that sedimenatary rocks are not usually radiometrically dated is because they are mixed with a vast array of sedimentary stuff. Yes they are dated by index fossils but then the index fossils are in turn dated by the sedimentary rocks? Thats circular reasoning of the most grotesque kind.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I fully agree: date the layers by the fossils, and then date the fossils by the layers is a grotesque example of circular reasoning. Fortunately, it's also a grotesquely inaccurate Creationist caricature of what real scientists do when they work on figuring out how old rocks are, so the actual dates provided by real scientists are not rendered invalid by that caricature.
    The evidence of, well, pretty much everything you've posted here, suggests that you have no desire to learn more about what real scientists do when they work on figuring out how old rocks are, forastero. If you ever change your mind about that, lots of people here will be happy to help you remedy your ignorance.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Okay then, when is someone here finally going to explain exactly how they date those index critters?

    I mean they are not hardly ever found in igneous rocks and even your own so called radiomagic expert doent date sedimentary rocks with radiometric dating so......
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    This has been explained to you at least 3 times in this thread.  Please tell us why you don't listen?

    First, index fossils do not 'date' a strata.  They are used to tell the relative time periods involved. (i.e. strata A is older than strata B because A has conodonts and B has mammal teeth).

    To determine the actual age RANGE you have to find igneous rocks in layers above and below the sed layer under study.

    Now, listen.  This is important.

    Index fossils are called that because they are A) easy to identify and B) found ALL OVER THE WORLD IN THE SAME STRATA.

    So even if strata B doesn't have an igneous layer on top of it in N. America, it will in India.  It's a concept called stratigraphy and it's worth several junior to graduate level courses.  If fact, as I have mentioned, oil geologists use these concepts ALL the time to make their parent company TONS of money.  Your concepts don't make anyone anything (except give me a headache occasionally).

    Now, here is a brief ASCII lesson in strat.


    A........................A...........................A.........................A
    B.......................B.........................................................
    C.....C...............C.........................................................C
    D........................D..........................D...........................D
    .................................................................E................E
    F........................F.........................................................

    A is the surface rock and each letter represents a strata.  If there is no letter, then there is none of that strata in that bore hole.  If you don't follow this, then don't assume, ask questions... and don't put words in my mouth.  Listen.

    A is recent non-lithified sediment
    B is volcanic ash
    C is silt stone
    D is limestone
    E is volcanic ash
    F is basalt bedrock

    Now, do you agree that B is more recent than C and that D is more recent that E?  If not, then explain why, because this is the fundamental basis of geology.  If you don't agree with this, then you are unteachable.

    Now, you can date B and E.

    Since C exists in areas with both B and E, then B and E give the upper limits and lower limits of the age that C can be.

    Since C is a nice siltstone, it has some great index fossils.  Since those fossils exist through C, then we KNOW that the C underneath B and the C above E are the same.  

    Therefore, we can put an age range both on layer C AND the index fossils within it.

    I have little hope that this will get through.

    BTW: You are saying that the Carboniferous is the deposited layer of the great flood, yes?  That is still your claim, yes?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Sounds like another double standard. First y'all say mutation this mutation that, but if I mention a isotope mutation you get all sour-pussed. Likewise, you been telling me all along that different layers represent vastly different ages but now ya suddenly go and say a igneous rock next to the sedimentary rock was laid down together.

    Oh and they dont use conodonts but rather so called conodont teeth, which  btw, look an awful lot like baby lamprey and hagfish teeth. Not only that but those teeth are found in a lot of different strata around the world. Likewise mammal-like reptiles have teeth like modern reptiles so you will have to provide some better index fossils imo
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 18 2011,03:57

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,03:41)
    so you will have to provide some better index fossils imo
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    As it happens your opinion does not count for shit.

    Does it?
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 18 2011,04:02

    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2011,23:16)
    Did you know (hah!) that the Green River is the largest oil shale bed in the world?  Do you know how oil shale forms (hah!)?  It's algae.  Yes, the lovely blue green algae that coats the bottom of nasty, stagnant lakes.  And somehow, this algae, managed to grow to cover some 65,000 square kilometers and then get buried in sediment, then grow again to cover 65,000 square kilometers, and again, and again, and again for several thousand layers... some 2000 feet thick... all in that flood of yours (or in the years after the flood).  Oh, and then it has to be slowly, gently heated and compacted... etc. etc. etc
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Green River formation doesnt represent a nasty lake but rather a very great and bio diverse lake.  Blue green algae is Cyanobacteria and can grow in fresh or saltwater and on land.

    Btw oil shale is another hydrocarbonated fossil fuel known to be laid down by flood compaction.
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 18 2011,04:17

    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 17 2011,23:13)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,22:51)
     
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2011,07:19)
       
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,23:27)
       
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2011,08:31)
         
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:19)
    The same the Flood piled up over 2200 feet in Carboniferous Texas


    THE MISSISSIPPIAN BARNETT FORMATION:
    A SOURCE-ROCK, SEAL, AND RESERVOIR PRODUCED BY EARLY CARBONIFEROUS FLOODING OF THE TEXAS CRATON

    < http://www.beg.utexas.edu/resprog....ter.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    So, 2200 = 17,000?

    So, are you claiming here that the strata that is the flood is from the carboniferous?

    So, we should start looking for 17,000 feet worth of coal somewhere in the carboniferous period?

    While, we're talking, please discuss the Green River Formation and the annual layers that result in 6 million years of history in that one formation.

    I'd like to know if that is a pre-flood, flood, or post-flood strata.

    Thanks
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Again, are you ever gonna tell me where this 17,000 ft of sediment was found?

    Again, the carboniferous represents strata of hydrocarbonated fossil fuels caused by Flooded and buried rainforests.

    Likewise, the Green River formation is a remnant of the great the Niobrara Sea, which is itself a remnant of the Flood
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    READ what we Fucking write dude.  Jesus you're dumb.

    I've mentioned it twice and given you the link to it.

    Interesting, so if the Green River formation occurred during the year of the flood, then please do explain (including citations of experimental evidence) of how 42 layers of siltstone appeared EVERY SINGLE DAY, while in a raging flood.

    It might interest you to know that the Green River Formation is EOCENE in age... which is a couple hundred million years AFTER the Carboniferous.

    So, which is the flood strata again, carboniferous, really?  That's your claim?  Are you sure?  Is that your final answer?

    yes/no
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    What page is the link for the 17000 ft

    Again the carbiniferous is one of many flood strata

    So when you gonna list these geologic columns?

    Again the Eocene dates are wrong like all of the rest
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    < TalkOrigins Archive FAQ on the geologic column >

     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    The W. H. Hunt Trust Estate Larson #1 will in Section 10 Township 148 N Range 101 W was drilled to 15,064 feet deep. This well was drilled just west of the outcrop of the Golden Valley formation and begins in the Tertiary Fort Union Formation. The various horizons described above were encountered at the following depths (Fm=formation; Grp=Group; Lm=Limestone):

    Tertiary Ft. Union Fm ..........................100 feet
    Cretaceous Greenhorn Fm .......................4910 feet
    Cretaceous Mowry Fm........................... 5370 feet
    Cretaceous Inyan Kara Fm.......................5790 feet
    Jurassic Rierdon Fm............................6690 feet
    Triassic Spearfish Fm..........................7325 feet
    Permian Opeche Fm..............................7740 feet
    Pennsylvanian Amsden Fm........................7990 feet
    Pennsylvanian Tyler Fm.........................8245 feet
    Mississippian Otter Fm.........................8440 feet
    Mississippian Kibbey Lm........................8780 feet
    Mississippian Charles Fm.......................8945 feet
    Mississippian Mission Canyon Fm................9775 feet
    Mississippian Lodgepole Fm....................10255 feet
    Devonian Bakken Fm............................11085 feet
    Devonian Birdbear Fm..........................11340 feet
    Devonian Duperow Fm...........................11422 feet
    Devonian Souris River Fm......................11832 feet
    Devonian Dawson Bay Fm........................12089 feet
    Devonian Prairie Fm...........................12180 feet
    Devonian Winnipegosis Grp.....................12310 feet
    Silurian Interlake Fm.........................12539 feet
    Ordovician Stonewall Fm.......................13250 feet
    Ordovician Red River Dolomite.................13630 feet
    Ordovician Winnipeg Grp.......................14210 feet
    Ordovician Black Island Fm....................14355 feet
    Cambrian Deadwood Fm..........................14445 feet
    Precambrian...................................14945 feet

    Conclusion

    What does all this mean?

    First, as I have noted before, the concept quite prevalent among some Christians that the geologic column does not exist is quite wrong. Morris and Parker (1987, p. 163) write:
    Now, the geologic column is an idea, not an actual series of rock layers. Nowhere do we find the complete sequence.
    They are wrong. You just saw the whole column piled up in one place where one oil well can drill through it. Not only that, the entire geologic column is found in 25 other basins around the world, piled up in proper order. These basins are:

    The Ghadames Basin in Libya
    The Beni Mellal Basin in Morrocco
    The Tunisian Basin in Tunisia
    The Oman Interior Basin in Oman
    The Western Desert Basin in Egypt
    The Adana Basin in Turkey
    The Iskenderun Basin in Turkey
    The Moesian Platform in Bulgaria
    The Carpathian Basin in Poland
    The Baltic Basin in the USSR
    The Yeniseiy-Khatanga Basin in the USSR
    The Farah Basin in Afghanistan
    The Helmand Basin in Afghanistan
    The Yazd-Kerman-Tabas Basin in Iran
    The Manhai-Subei Basin in China
    The Jiuxi Basin China
    The Tung t'in - Yuan Shui Basin China
    The Tarim Basin China
    The Szechwan Basin China
    The Yukon-Porcupine Province Alaska
    The Williston Basin in North Dakota
    The Tampico Embayment Mexico
    The Bogata Basin Colombia
    The Bonaparte Basin, Australia
    The Beaufort Sea Basin/McKenzie River Delta

    (Sources:
    Robertson Group, 1989;
    A.F. Trendall et al , editors, Geol. Surv. West. Australia Memoir 3, 1990, pp 382, 396;
    N.E. Haimla et al, The Geology of North America, Vol. L, DNAG volumes, 1990, p. 517)

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    The author, Glenn Morton, is an evangelical Christian and also a past contributor to various creationist publications.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I read  through your link but your little paragraph is all the info they give on it. For such a grand column, you think there would have elaborated on it some what? I imagine from the citation that it was done with pollen but then well drilling dont operate like a core sampler but rather mixes everything up as it pushes and grinds away. Anyway, I’d sure like to see the preCambrian pollen.

    Again the typical geological map including of North Dakota  dont have that type of statigraphy
    < http://0.tqn.com/d....900.jpg >

    Out of place layers
    < http://creationwiki.org/Geologi...._layers >
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 18 2011,06:31

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,04:17)
    Out of place layers
    < http://creationwiki.org/Geologi...._layers >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    And?

    CreationWiki does not rise to the level of science.

    If you have a peer reviewed paper written by people saying the same thing them by all means present it.

    Otherwise why should anybody respond to the ramblings of idiots?

     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Fossils in the wrong order "big time"
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Yes, that appears to qualify as science to you.

    And anyway, if fossils are found in layers how can that be if they were all laid down at the same time during a single flood event?



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Fossils do not always line up in layers. Often only one layer of fossils is found at a given site. This is particularly common with vertebrates. Sometimes they are found in multiple layers, but a statistical study of their distribution shows that even index fossils are seldom found layered on top of one another. It also shows that many fossils are artificially restricted to a few layers.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    How do you square that with a global flood? Even the websites you provide in support of your "argument" refutes your primary claim.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 18 2011,06:48

    Little Bunny,

    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, Little Bunny, run!
    Posted by: JonF on 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.

       

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Here is an abstract on cosmogenic 40k but its split between two pages
    < http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......5R.342N > < http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......00.html >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Irrelevant. Not terrestrial.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Nope. No mention of isochron dating at your reference. Who says 85Sr is used in isochron dating?


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

    Cosmic rays do effect terrestrial isotopes
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Some terrestrial isotopes, yeah. But cosmic rays do not affect any terrestrial isotopes relevant to isochron dating
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 18 2011,07:04

    Everything you said in response to my articles is pretty much wrong.

    You have failed to even read what I wrote.  

    You did not cite ANYTHING that would support your claims.

    Remember dude, I'm citing the current knowledge, you are claiming that it is wrong.  Support your assertions.

    I'll do a detailed breakdown of your idiocy and utter ignorance in a while... but here's a few hints.

    1) Look at what I wrote.  Read it.  Understand it.  Didn't I warn you about putting words in my mouth.  If you cannot read for comprehension, then you probably shouldn't even be here.  There are very few pictures on this forum.

    2) If you make a claim, then you should probably look and see how that claim was debunked 20-30 years ago before continuing the same ignorance.

    3) Claims without support are not arguments.  They are wishful thinking from someone who doesn't know any better.

    4) Try actually arguing about what we're talking about.  Your blatant attempts to change the subject just show you cannot deal with the actual arguments.

    5) Failure to answer questions is the same.

    BTW: You are not using your holy book.  If more than one flood occurred, then we're right and you are wrong.
    Posted by: JonF on Nov. 18 2011,07:05

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,23:36)
    Quote (JonF @ Nov. 17 2011,06:59)
    No, as I've pointed out several times. They are dated by their relationship to igneous layers.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I dont recall that but please do elaborate
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    See < this message > from page 27, think about it, and answer the questions at the end. See also < Geologic Time > near the end under "Absolute Dating and Geologic Time Scale".
    Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 18 2011,07:11

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,04:17)
    Again the typical geological map including of North Dakota  dont have that type of statigraphy
    < http://0.tqn.com/d....90....900.jpg >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Trust you to use a map labeled "Surface Geology" to be making an overarching blanket statement about stratigraphy.

    You don't find something except in the places you do.

    As the Scots lawyer declared to the jury, "The prosecutor has three witnesses who will testify that they saw my client kill him. But I will produce thirty witnesses who will testify that they dinna see my client kill him!"
    Posted by: JonF on Nov. 18 2011,07:16

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,23:45)
     
    Quote (JonF @ Nov. 17 2011,07:18)
    ?        

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    The history of geochronology can be roughly divided
    into three periods:

  • a period of single-sample K-Ar and Rb-Sr mineral or whole-rock age determinations;
  • a time when most ages were determined with the help of Rb-Sr and Pb-Pb whole-rock isochrons and multi-grain zircon U-Pb isotope data;
  • the present, where ‘single’ zircon U-Pb data are the preferred method to obtain rock ages.

    These stages in the development of radiometric dating
    methods partly overlap in time, and each has yielded
    very significant contributions to the knowledge
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    F. Kalsbeek, < "Age Determination of Precambrian Rocks from Greenland: Past and Present," > Geol. Greenland Surv. Bull. 176, 55 (1997).

           

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I do not do Rb-Sr geochronology myself, and should point out that it is a largely outmoded method for almost all modern geochronologic problems, since either Ar-Ar or zircon (monazite, titanite, baddeleyite...) U/Pb can almost always do better in terms of both accuracy and precision...

    As an example (see attached figure), for a review of an article a few months ago I did a quick literature search of articles presenting new geochronology (excluding rocks of Pleistocene age. for which methods such as radiocarbon, uranium series, optical luminescence.... are important) in a variety of different journals (Geology, Geol. Soc. Amer. Bull., Canadian Jour. Earth Sci., Contrib. Mineralogy & Petrology) for the past 5 years. Of the 164 articles I selected at random, more than 80% were done by either U-Pb (54%) or Ar-Ar/ K-Ar (30%). with less than 5% each were done by Rb-Sr or Sm -Nd. In other words, both Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd are now minor methods in modern geochronology (though they remain extremely important in studies of petrology and crustal evolution).
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Ludwig, K.R., personal communication, 3 Mar 2003. Note that "Ar" includes both K-Ar and Ar-Ar.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Not that I actually agree but Interesting, especially considering that Rb-Sr is about the only isochron attempted with sedimentary rocks
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Yeah, I know you're allergic to facts. I notice you haven't supported your claim that Rb-Sr is the most widely used dating method, whereas I've amply supported my claim that U-Pb is by far the most widely used in the last two decades or so.

    K-Ar and Ar-Ar dating is sometimes used on sedimentary rock, and you keep insisting that Ar-AR is an isochron method: Illite and hydrocarbon exploration, < Dating petroleum emplacement by illite 40Ar/39Ar laser stepwise heating >. U-Pb dating is also used : < SHRIMP Uranium-Lead Dating of Diagenetic Xenotime in Siliciclastic Sedimentary Rocks >.
    Posted by: JonF on Nov. 18 2011,07:18

    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 18 2011,00:16)
    Which is the strata laid down by the Flood of Noah that wiped out every living thing on the planet?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    The singular of strata is stratum.
    Posted by: JonF on Nov. 18 2011,07:20

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,00:18)
    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 17 2011,22:47)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,22:34)
       
    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.

         

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Here is an abstract on cosmogenic 40k but its split between two pages
    < http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......5R.342N > < http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......00.html >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Irrelevant. Not terrestrial.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    You said the following was an excellent table < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium >

    Well look at the daughter isotopes of 87Sr


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    There are no daughter isotopes of Sr-87 which comes from Rb-87 because that Sr-87 is stable.  Jebus you're stupid.  Sr m means metastable, but is not formed from Rb-87, so the fact that it decays has no measurable effect on Rb-Sr isochron dating.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I notice that you avoided Jon's so called excellent link, which provides two daughter isotopes
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Still the crappy reading comprehension, right? He's right, the table at that reference indicates that "there are no daughter isotopes of Sr-87... because that Sr-87 is stable". 87Sr is the only relevant isotope of Sr.
    Posted by: JonF on Nov. 18 2011,07:23

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,00:45)
    Oh btw, coal does have c14 but of course that one of the few time y'all cry "contamination!"
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Actually, no, we investigate and learn and conclude contamination. < RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? >.
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 18 2011,08:40

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,23:45)
    Oh btw, coal does have c14 but of course that one of the few time y'all cry "contamination!"
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Coal is not just a bunch of carbon, so it is expected to be "contaminated", whatever you think that would mean for material derived from buried plant materials, dirt and all.

    C-14 in many oil deposits, not so much.

    Just to add from the borexino web site
    "The results of the Counting Test Facility in terms of U,Th and 14C contamination (internal background) indicates that the radiopurity goals of the experiment have been reached:

       * Uranium chain contamination (more appropriately 226Ra) has been measured to be at most 3.5 (1.3) x 10 -16.
       * Thorium contamination was found to be 4.4 (1.5) x 10 -16.
       * Carbon-14 contamination was measured to be 1.94 (0.09) x 10 -18 (14C/12C). "

    I leave it as an exercise for Forastero to do the "formula waving".  LOL.
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 18 2011,10:13

    Let's start with some of forastero's comments shall we...



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I read  through your link but your little paragraph is all the info they give on it. For such a grand column, you think there would have elaborated on it some what? I imagine from the citation that it was done with pollen but then well drilling dont operate like a core sampler but rather mixes everything up as it pushes and grinds away. Anyway, I’d sure like to see the preCambrian pollen.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    I think everyone would like to see this, since there were NO LAND ORGANISMS in the Precambrian.  This is just sad.

    You would think that for someone so interested in this, you could actually do some research on your own.  The concept of 'summary' seems to be beyond you.  As I said, stratigraphy is a course of study that covers multiple classes in multiple semesters.  It's not something that we can explain to you in a 15 minute essay.  It's almost sad that you think major concepts in science can be explained in 15 minute snippets.



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Green River formation doesnt represent a nasty lake but rather a very great and bio diverse lake.  Blue green algae is Cyanobacteria and can grow in fresh or saltwater and on land.

    Btw oil shale is another hydrocarbonated fossil fuel known to be laid down by flood compaction.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Look, you still aren't getting the concept here.  You have to explain hundreds of feet of compacted oil shale, with intervening layers of other rock (not soft sandy stuff, but ROCK), and you have to explain the massive compaction to drive the water out and the heat and you have to do all of that either during the Flood of Noah or in the less than 6000 years since the flood of Noah.

    You don't have to explain one thin layer of oil shale that formed in this way, but millions.



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Sounds like another double standard. First y'all say mutation this mutation that, but if I mention a isotope mutation you get all sour-pussed. Likewise, you been telling me all along that different layers represent vastly different ages but now ya suddenly go and say a igneous rock next to the sedimentary rock was laid down together.

    Oh and they dont use conodonts but rather so called conodont teeth, which  btw, look an awful lot like baby lamprey and hagfish teeth. Not only that but those teeth are found in a lot of different strata around the world. Likewise mammal-like reptiles have teeth like modern reptiles so you will have to provide some better index fossils imo
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Mutations, have zero to do with this.  This has nothing to do with anything to do with evolutionary theory.  Index fossils are species (or genera) that have stayed remarkably similar over long time periods and have a nearly global coverage.  There is nothing in evolutionary theory that prevents this from happening.  

    I did not say "a igneous rock next to the sedimentary rock was laid down together."  That is a lie.  You should be more careful about the things you say.  I warned you not to put words in my mouth.  

    Look very carefully at what I said.

    The upper igneous layer gives you the max age that the sed layer could be.  The lower igneous layer gives you the minimum age that the sed layer could be.  

    If a layer is between two datable layers, then the age of the layer is between that of the two datable layers.  This isn't rocket science.  But it is real science, not whatever you think is science.

    Your babbling about the various fossils are meaningless.  You don't understand the basic concept, so your ideas about what constitutes a valid index fossils are likewise meaningless.

    I promise you, there are many, many experts in the field and they are making lots more money than you are with the current knowledge.



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Oh btw, coal does have c14 but of course that one of the few time y'all cry "contamination!"
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Really, what's the half life of C-14?  What is the estimated age of Carboniferous coal beds?  Feel free to give a justifiable range.  How much C-14 is likely to remain in Carboniferous coal beds?  



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Thanks for the link but all it sasys about the 17000' is: "The third picture I have is of an eroded surface in the Ordovician of China. This is due to the careful mapping of an erosional event on a three dimensional seismic volume. It is in the Tarim Basin in far western China and this erosional surface is buried 5200 meters (that is, 17,000 feet deep). It shows a branching drainage pattern as well. Such features could not have formed in the global flood in just a few years. The rock being eroded into is hard limestone.  That must be fresh water because sea water already has all the limestone it can hold dissolved within it.. The surface shown below has had thousands of feet of limestone removed by erosion and that would take time with numbers like this. It would take 100,000 years of constant rainfall to erode a ditch about 6 feet deep. Yet on this erosional surface taken from a sonogram of the earth, we find hundreds of feet of relief. Note also the branching channel patterns due to drainage on this picture. "

    We have seen that that erosion can happen very fast and what is his point concerning seawater? Drainage patterns on the higher periphery of the gouge could have developed later


    When I say flood, I mean the Flood but then why do you insist that a major flood only creates one strata, especially after I showed you how lots of strata can develop from even a one-day event at Mount St Helens?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Please cite a study that shows that meandering canyons can be carved into limestone in a 'short amount of time'.

    Drainage patterns could NOT have developed later, because the Flood has to put another 17,000 feet of sediment (that's 3+ miles) on top of it.

    You really don't know anything do you?  You do realize that the environment of the sedimentary deposit can be determined by the nature of the deposit.  You can't form anhydrites in any water or even moist environment, that takes a desert.  You can't form siltstone in fast moving water.  It's simple physics (of course, you disagree with physics too, but that's beside the point).

    Let me ask you... how much ROCK was formed in the Mt. St. Helen's event?

    BTW: You still haven't answer the question... what exploded to cause the Big Bang?  We'll get to your abysmal understanding of thermodynamics later.  

    What exploded to cause the Big Bang?

    Run away little bun-bun.
    Posted by: blipey on Nov. 18 2011,10:36

    Hey forastero,

    Are you still having trouble coming up with the derivation of your growth rate in that population equation you kept touting?

    Now, I'm just a clown; surely you can out-reason a clown?  I mean, I am a professional clown but come on.  Tell us how you derived your growth rate.  Or, are you just a clown (of the amateur variety)?
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 18 2011,11:30

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,23:18)
    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 17 2011,22:47)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,22:34)
       
    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.

         

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Here is an abstract on cosmogenic 40k but its split between two pages
    < http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......5R.342N > < http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......00.html >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Irrelevant. Not terrestrial.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    You said the following was an excellent table < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium >

    Well look at the daughter isotopes of 87Sr


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    There are no daughter isotopes of Sr-87 which comes from Rb-87 because that Sr-87 is stable.  Jebus you're stupid.  Sr m means metastable, but is not formed from Rb-87, so the fact that it decays has no measurable effect on Rb-Sr isochron dating.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I notice that you avoided Jon's so called excellent link, which provides two daughter isotopes
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    You see two Sr-87 in the table and claim that they are the same thing because you are stupid.  That would be like seeing two girls named Lois and thinking they are  both daughters of the same parent.
    Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 18 2011,11:41

    Quote (blipey @ Nov. 18 2011,08:36)
    Hey forastero,

    Are you still having trouble coming up with the derivation of your growth rate in that population equation you kept touting?

    Now, I'm just a clown; surely you can out-reason a clown?  I mean, I am a professional clown but come on.  Tell us how you derived your growth rate.  Or, are you just a clown (of the amateur variety)?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I looked at the muppet's conservative, for-the-sake-of-argument-and-not-copied-mindlessly-from-some-creationist-site growth rate of 0.5% per year.  

    Let's consider the rat.

    As everyone knows, 4500 years ago the entire world population of rats consisted of Mr and Mrs Rat floating around on a big wooden boat.  So when they arrived back on dry land, the population had some increasing to do.  Now, rats breed a lot faster than people - their lifespan is about a year.  So we need to scale the muppet's rate up a bit - if we multiply it by 20, that gives us 10% per year.  In fact, let's be extra generous to the muppet and pull an even more conservative base rate of 0.1% out of my arse - so for rats we have a rate of 2% per year.  As I'm sure the muppet would agree, this is really, really conservative.

    Plugging this into muppet's compound interest formula, which we all know is an entirely sensible way to estimate population growth in organisms, 4500 years after Mr and Mrs Rat walked down the gangplank we have a population of 10^38 rats.  That's just under 7,000,000,000,000,000,000 rats per square millimetre of the Earth's land surface.

    I wonder where they are?
    Posted by: blipey on Nov. 18 2011,11:57

    JohnW:  

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I wonder where they are?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Nym?
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 18 2011,12:28

    Quote (blipey @ Nov. 18 2011,11:57)
    JohnW:  

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I wonder where they are?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Nym?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    NIMH

    My understanding is that majority live in the hollow interior of the Earth (that used to be filled with water until the Great Flood).  They do evil experiments on cats and keep the Earth warm with their fusion reactors.

    Go ahead forastero, prove me wrong.
    Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 18 2011,12:43

    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 18 2011,10:28)
    My understanding is that majority live in the hollow interior of the Earth (that used to be filled with water until the Great Flood).  They do evil experiments on cats and keep the Earth warm with their fusion reactors.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    So that's what's been buggering up all those isochrons, making the Earth look 200,000 times older than it really is.  It's all starting to come together...
    Posted by: George on Nov. 18 2011,12:48

    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 18 2011,12:28)
     
    Quote (blipey @ Nov. 18 2011,11:57)
    JohnW:      

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I wonder where they are?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Nym?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    NIMH

    My understanding is that majority live in the hollow interior of the Earth (that used to be filled with water until the Great Flood).  They do evil experiments on cats and keep the Earth warm with their fusion reactors.

    Go ahead forastero, prove me wrong.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    They're in the < strawberry tart. >
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 18 2011,12:58

    Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 18 2011,12:43)
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 18 2011,10:28)
    My understanding is that majority live in the hollow interior of the Earth (that used to be filled with water until the Great Flood).  They do evil experiments on cats and keep the Earth warm with their fusion reactors.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    So that's what's been buggering up all those isochrons, making the Earth look 200,000 times older than it really is.  It's all starting to come together...
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I'm fairly confident that I could come up with a story that both fits the evidence better AND is internally consistent.

    It would be way better than what forastero has presented.  It would still be wrong, but it would still be better than the random flinging he has.
    Posted by: blipey on Nov. 18 2011,14:31

    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 18 2011,12:28)
    Quote (blipey @ Nov. 18 2011,11:57)
    JohnW:    

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I wonder where they are?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Nym?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    NIMH

    My understanding is that majority live in the hollow interior of the Earth (that used to be filled with water until the Great Flood).  They do evil experiments on cats and keep the Earth warm with their fusion reactors.

    Go ahead forastero, prove me wrong.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    No "NYM" is the original spelling used in ruff draughts by the author.  It was only changed because...no, shit; I made a mistake.  See how easy that is, forastero?  You should try it sometime.

    As to the actual theory put forth, I believe it to be correct and written extensively about by the great Immanuel Velikovsky.  Come on, forastero, you know you want to cite him.
    Posted by: tsig on Nov. 18 2011,17:55

    Quote (Quack @ Nov. 16 2011,06:21)


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    "To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    All that's left then is proof of Mary's virginity and the historicity of the gospel's gallery of persons. The possibility of differing views on what constitute 'proper understanding' may of course be assumed non existent. Things become much clearer then.



    ETA: typo fix.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Somewhere there must be a Church of the Holy Hymen.
    Posted by: tsig on Nov. 18 2011,18:14

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,00:39)
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2011,23:27)
    Here's the deal for, you have to explain everything that we have talked about and do so in an internally consistent way without resorting to miracles and you have to do it in such a way that can be observed.

    EVERYTHING we have talked about in this thread is explained by the way we look at the world through science.  Further, that same science makes predictions that have been verified (some of them) for several hundred years.

    The Big Bang theory makes a prediction that is confirmed in two separate, independent experiments.

    Radiometric dating is confirmed because, very simply, every valid test run on the same sample of rock, gives the same age.  These methods are independent. If there were some fundamental difference, then the date would not correlate.  Further, these dates are supported by other means.

    You cannot get around this simple fact.  You can hack away with your technobabble for years and it won't make any difference.  What are your notions that explain EVERYTHING we have talked about?

    Why are you scared to present those notions to the same level of scrutiny that you subject to ours?  (None of which is new BTW.)
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Practice what you preach and  quit yall's pantheistic creationism with all its mystical mutationology, radiomagic wands, crystal ball chronologies, and ape animisms to study some season of the niche spaghetti monsters made outa of a fountain of soup and cosmic rays from the heavens
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Something seems to be wrong with your keyboard.
    Posted by: tsig on Nov. 18 2011,18:23

    Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 18 2011,11:41)
    Quote (blipey @ Nov. 18 2011,08:36)
    Hey forastero,

    Are you still having trouble coming up with the derivation of your growth rate in that population equation you kept touting?

    Now, I'm just a clown; surely you can out-reason a clown?  I mean, I am a professional clown but come on.  Tell us how you derived your growth rate.  Or, are you just a clown (of the amateur variety)?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I looked at the muppet's conservative, for-the-sake-of-argument-and-not-copied-mindlessly-from-some-creationist-site growth rate of 0.5% per year.  

    Let's consider the rat.

    As everyone knows, 4500 years ago the entire world population of rats consisted of Mr and Mrs Rat floating around on a big wooden boat.  So when they arrived back on dry land, the population had some increasing to do.  Now, rats breed a lot faster than people - their lifespan is about a year.  So we need to scale the muppet's rate up a bit - if we multiply it by 20, that gives us 10% per year.  In fact, let's be extra generous to the muppet and pull an even more conservative base rate of 0.1% out of my arse - so for rats we have a rate of 2% per year.  As I'm sure the muppet would agree, this is really, really conservative.

    Plugging this into muppet's compound interest formula, which we all know is an entirely sensible way to estimate population growth in organisms, 4500 years after Mr and Mrs Rat walked down the gangplank we have a population of 10^38 rats.  That's just under 7,000,000,000,000,000,000 rats per square millimetre of the Earth's land surface.

    I wonder where they are?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    They were eaten by the 50,000,000 hawks who also underwent explosive growth after the Flud, the hawks died after they ate all the mice, surely you remember the great hawk die off of '06?
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 18 2011,19:26

    Little Bunny is being very still. He thinks, "Maybe then they can't see me!"
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 18 2011,19:33

    oh shit hawk got the rabbit!


    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 18 2011,20:34

    Now Little Bunny really knows when the flood occurred.
    Posted by: Louis on Nov. 18 2011,21:35

    Quote (tsig @ Nov. 18 2011,23:14)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,00:39)
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 17 2011,23:27)
    Here's the deal for, you have to explain everything that we have talked about and do so in an internally consistent way without resorting to miracles and you have to do it in such a way that can be observed.

    EVERYTHING we have talked about in this thread is explained by the way we look at the world through science.  Further, that same science makes predictions that have been verified (some of them) for several hundred years.

    The Big Bang theory makes a prediction that is confirmed in two separate, independent experiments.

    Radiometric dating is confirmed because, very simply, every valid test run on the same sample of rock, gives the same age.  These methods are independent. If there were some fundamental difference, then the date would not correlate.  Further, these dates are supported by other means.

    You cannot get around this simple fact.  You can hack away with your technobabble for years and it won't make any difference.  What are your notions that explain EVERYTHING we have talked about?

    Why are you scared to present those notions to the same level of scrutiny that you subject to ours?  (None of which is new BTW.)
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Practice what you preach and  quit yall's pantheistic creationism with all its mystical mutationology, radiomagic wands, crystal ball chronologies, and ape animisms to study some season of the niche spaghetti monsters made outa of a fountain of soup and cosmic rays from the heavens
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Something seems to be wrong with your keyboard.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    The worrying thing is: The problem ain't the keyboard.

    Louis
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 18 2011,22:29

    check out how stupid fourass is looking on PT right now

    it's pappaw tard's thread, the one where both the IDiots forget there is a fucking sun and that acorns turn into oak trees.

    i guess it's all those dicks blocking out the ball of energy in the sky
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 18 2011,22:46

    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 17 2011,06:53)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,23:11)
       
    Quote (blipey @ Nov. 16 2011,11:38)
    Hey forastero,

    I noticed that you still have absolutely no idea where your growth rate comes from.  I find it hard to believe that a rational person could stand behind an equation that includes variables that he does't even understand.

    Fortunately, you aren't a rational person.  However, you could take a first step in that direction by tell us how you derived THE GROWTH RATE IN YOUR POPULATION EQUATION.


    Thanks.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    It seems that the growth rate that I provided is about average compared to other estimates prehistoric and/or hunter gather estimates listed below. Thus, if we used yall's long ages, the populations would be vastly higher and man could grind a grave just about anywhere he dug

    < 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 >

    < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >

    < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Providing a number isn't the issue. Showing how the number was derived was the question. Understanding something about population dynamics is well down the road from that first step, apparently.

    Did you not bother to read < my critique > of the SciCre population argument? I provided the link earlier.

    Oh well, I guess I'll just post it here for you.

    ===


    Population Size and Time of Creation or Flood

    by Wesley R. Elsberry
    Last updated: 980413
    SciCre Population Dynamics: An Exercise in Selective and Misleading Use of Data
     
    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 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. Some are precise enough to restrict their conclusion to only humans, others leave how much is disproved unspecified.  Some utilize the numbers to infer intermediate population sizes.
     
    I am going to point out some problems with the SciCre population argument.  First, the argument assumes what it is supposed to prove. Second, all such arguments yield absurd values for population sizes at historical times.  Third, the argument ignores what is known about population dynamics from other species.  Fourth, final population size is an unreliable indicator of initial population time.  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.
     
    I will take as an example one such argument forwarded by William Williams in his 1925 book, "Evolution Disproved", and illustrate my points above.  This is available online at < http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilli....ms.html >
     
    First, the population argument assumes what it is supposed to prove.
     
       

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


        Now, according to the chronology of Hales, based on the Septuagint text, 5077 years have elapsed since the flood, and 5177 years since the ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife.  By dividing 5177 by 30.75, we find it requires an average of 168.3 years for the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the present population.  This is a reasonable average length of time.
     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     
    By this calculation, Williams has coupled his rate of increase to his specific timetable, the timetable that the argument is supposed to validate.  If the population argument were to mean something, the rate of increase would be derived from independent information, not from the information that is at issue.  It should surprise no one that Williams is able to show precise concordance of current population with a timetable since The Flood, since that is how he cooked the numbers to begin with.
     
    Second, all such arguments yield absurd values for population sizes at historical times.  I will first demonstrate that Williams utilizes his numbers to derive intermediate population sizes.
     
       

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


        The testimony of all the experts in the present Scopes trial in Tennessee (who escaped cross-examination) was to the effect that evolution was in harmony with some facts and therefore possibly true.  The above mathematical calculations prove that the evolution of man was certainly not true.  They fail to make their case even if we grant their claims.  These figures prove the Bible story, and scrap every guess of the great age and the brute origin of man.  It will be observed that the above calculations point to the unity of the race in the days of Noah, 5,177 years ago, rather than in the days of Adam 7,333 years ago, according to Hales' chronology.  If the race increased at the Jewish rate, not over 16,384 perished by the Flood, fewer than by many a modern catastrophe.  This most merciful providence of God started the race anew with a righteous head.
        Now, if there had been not flood to destroy the human race, then the descendants of Adam, in the 7333 years, would have been 16,384 times the 1,804,187,000 or 29,559,799,808,000; or computed at the Jewish rate of net increase for 7333 years since Adam, the population have been still greater, or 35,184,372,088,832.  These calculations are in perfect accord with the Scripture story of the special creation of man, and the destruction of the race by a flood.  Had it not been for the flood, the earth could not have sustained the descendants of Adam.  Is not his demonstration decisive and final?
     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     
    Now that we have verified that making inferences as to intermediate population values is an activity engaged in by even those people who forward these arguments, we can proceed to showing what the population argument implies about the human population size at various points in history.  The following follows from Williams set of population parameters: 5,177 years prior to 1925 for an initial population of 2, and a doubling time of 168.3 years.
     


    ---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

    World Population    Date     Event
     
                     17  2566 BC  Construction of Great Pyramid
                2,729  1332 BC  Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten dies
                5,000  1185 BC  Trojan War
                         ~1200 BC  Hebrew exodus, # of males = 603,550 (excluding Levites)
              32,971    776 BC  First Olympic games
              87,507    490 BC  Greek wars with Persia
            133,744    387 BC  Brennus' Sack of Rome
            586,678      28 BC  Augustus' census of Rome (70 to 100 million counted)
            655,683        1 AD  Nice date

    ---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



    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.
     
    Third, the argument ignores what is known about population dynamics from other species.  Various other species can be observed to sometimes reproduce exponentially, but we observe that such populations fluctuate, stabilize, or crash.  In no case do exponentially reproducing populations "take over the world" as SciCre'ists assure us would be the case if evolution were true.  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.  Just as the number of E. coli present in your gut will not tell us your birthday or the time of your last use of an antibiotic, so human population size is decoupled from when Homo sapiens arose, or even when a bottleneck may have occurred.

    Fourth, 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.
     
    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.  Human history does not record a global flood.  Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood.  Geological evidence shows no sign of a global flood.  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.
     
    In short, the SciCre population argument fails on many different criteria.  Honest creationists should eschew its use.

    ===

    None of your links show anyone thinking that continuous, constant exponential growth is an expected feature of any population. Why would you?

    Why aren't people assigned an age based on the numbers of E. coli in their gut? If your reasoning was adequate, that ought to be an established forensic tool. It isn't. Ruminate on that.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
     Providing a number isn't the issue. Showing how the number was derived was the question. Understanding something about population dynamics is well down the road from that first step, apparently.

    Did you not bother to read my critique of the SciCre population argument? I provided the link earlier.


    ---------------------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

    [/quote]World Population    Date     Event

               17  2566 BC  Construction of Great Pyramid
               2,729  1332 BC  Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten dies
               5,000  1185 BC  Trojan War
                        ~1200 BC  Hebrew exodus, # of males = 603,550 (excluding Levites)
             32,971    776 BC  First Olympic games
             87,507    490 BC  Greek wars with Persia
           133,744    387 BC  Brennus' Sack of Rome
           586,678      28 BC  Augustus' census of Rome (70 to 100 million counted)
           655,683        1 AD  Nice date[/quote]

    Using the right formula and your Flood estimate of 3152 BC  or 5077 years from 1925, makes all of your dates above come out millions of times larger. This site will work it out for you: < http://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias....ion.php >



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Third, the argument ignores what is known about population dynamics from other species.  Various other species can be observed to sometimes reproduce exponentially, but we observe that such populations fluctuate, stabilize, or crash.  In no case do exponentially reproducing populations "take over the world" as SciCre'ists assure us would be the case if evolution were true.  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.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    I am well aware of the balances of nature, but I am also well aware that your model would necessitate a lot more graves and bones than are discovered today.

    Funny, how Darwinism loves Malthusian uniformitarianism and exponential growth formula until us Bible believers use it.  Btw, the Malthusian Parameter is referred to as the Exponential Law that developed at least partly from studying compound interest.  Interestingly, Africa has the highest population growth even though it also has among the highest if not the highest rates of death via plague, war, AIDS, Malaria, etc etc..



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Just as the number of E. coli present in your gut will not tell us your birthday or the time of your last use of an antibiotic, so human population size is decoupled from when Homo sapiens arose, or even when a bottleneck may have occurred.

    Why aren't people assigned an age based on the numbers of E. coli in their gut? If your reasoning was adequate, that ought to be an established forensic tool. It isn't. Ruminate on that.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    I am not sure what you mean in that first sentence. There actually are dates based on endobacteria and parasites in humans but its not usually if at all  based on their population size. Compared to humans, these critters have a much higher adaptive rate due too their higher reproductive and genetic transfer rates. Plus they are often transferred and spread from all kinds of migrating animals.



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    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 crux of the argument comes when they use the derived rate of increase for comparison to the deep time that evolutionary timetables give.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Birth rate? death rate = rate of natural increase  and every body knows its used as an average in this case. Thus, your just being sinisterly melodramatic imo.
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 18 2011,23:18

    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 18 2011,10:13)
    Let's start with some of forastero's comments shall we...



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I read  through your link but your little paragraph is all the info they give on it. For such a grand column, you think there would have elaborated on it some what? I imagine from the citation that it was done with pollen but then well drilling dont operate like a core sampler but rather mixes everything up as it pushes and grinds away. Anyway, I’d sure like to see the preCambrian pollen.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    I think everyone would like to see this, since there were NO LAND ORGANISMS in the Precambrian.  This is just sad.

    You would think that for someone so interested in this, you could actually do some research on your own.  The concept of 'summary' seems to be beyond you.  As I said, stratigraphy is a course of study that covers multiple classes in multiple semesters.  It's not something that we can explain to you in a 15 minute essay.  It's almost sad that you think major concepts in science can be explained in 15 minute snippets.



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Green River formation doesnt represent a nasty lake but rather a very great and bio diverse lake.  Blue green algae is Cyanobacteria and can grow in fresh or saltwater and on land.

    Btw oil shale is another hydrocarbonated fossil fuel known to be laid down by flood compaction.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Look, you still aren't getting the concept here.  You have to explain hundreds of feet of compacted oil shale, with intervening layers of other rock (not soft sandy stuff, but ROCK), and you have to explain the massive compaction to drive the water out and the heat and you have to do all of that either during the Flood of Noah or in the less than 6000 years since the flood of Noah.

    You don't have to explain one thin layer of oil shale that formed in this way, but millions.



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Sounds like another double standard. First y'all say mutation this mutation that, but if I mention a isotope mutation you get all sour-pussed. Likewise, you been telling me all along that different layers represent vastly different ages but now ya suddenly go and say a igneous rock next to the sedimentary rock was laid down together.

    Oh and they dont use conodonts but rather so called conodont teeth, which  btw, look an awful lot like baby lamprey and hagfish teeth. Not only that but those teeth are found in a lot of different strata around the world. Likewise mammal-like reptiles have teeth like modern reptiles so you will have to provide some better index fossils imo
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Mutations, have zero to do with this.  This has nothing to do with anything to do with evolutionary theory.  Index fossils are species (or genera) that have stayed remarkably similar over long time periods and have a nearly global coverage.  There is nothing in evolutionary theory that prevents this from happening.  

    I did not say "a igneous rock next to the sedimentary rock was laid down together."  That is a lie.  You should be more careful about the things you say.  I warned you not to put words in my mouth.  

    Look very carefully at what I said.

    The upper igneous layer gives you the max age that the sed layer could be.  The lower igneous layer gives you the minimum age that the sed layer could be.  

    If a layer is between two datable layers, then the age of the layer is between that of the two datable layers.  This isn't rocket science.  But it is real science, not whatever you think is science.

    Your babbling about the various fossils are meaningless.  You don't understand the basic concept, so your ideas about what constitutes a valid index fossils are likewise meaningless.

    I promise you, there are many, many experts in the field and they are making lots more money than you are with the current knowledge.



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Oh btw, coal does have c14 but of course that one of the few time y'all cry "contamination!"
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Really, what's the half life of C-14?  What is the estimated age of Carboniferous coal beds?  Feel free to give a justifiable range.  How much C-14 is likely to remain in Carboniferous coal beds?  



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Thanks for the link but all it sasys about the 17000' is: "The third picture I have is of an eroded surface in the Ordovician of China. This is due to the careful mapping of an erosional event on a three dimensional seismic volume. It is in the Tarim Basin in far western China and this erosional surface is buried 5200 meters (that is, 17,000 feet deep). It shows a branching drainage pattern as well. Such features could not have formed in the global flood in just a few years. The rock being eroded into is hard limestone.  That must be fresh water because sea water already has all the limestone it can hold dissolved within it.. The surface shown below has had thousands of feet of limestone removed by erosion and that would take time with numbers like this. It would take 100,000 years of constant rainfall to erode a ditch about 6 feet deep. Yet on this erosional surface taken from a sonogram of the earth, we find hundreds of feet of relief. Note also the branching channel patterns due to drainage on this picture. "

    We have seen that that erosion can happen very fast and what is his point concerning seawater? Drainage patterns on the higher periphery of the gouge could have developed later


    When I say flood, I mean the Flood but then why do you insist that a major flood only creates one strata, especially after I showed you how lots of strata can develop from even a one-day event at Mount St Helens?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Please cite a study that shows that meandering canyons can be carved into limestone in a 'short amount of time'.

    Drainage patterns could NOT have developed later, because the Flood has to put another 17,000 feet of sediment (that's 3+ miles) on top of it.

    You really don't know anything do you?  You do realize that the environment of the sedimentary deposit can be determined by the nature of the deposit.  You can't form anhydrites in any water or even moist environment, that takes a desert.  You can't form siltstone in fast moving water.  It's simple physics (of course, you disagree with physics too, but that's beside the point).

    Let me ask you... how much ROCK was formed in the Mt. St. Helen's event?

    BTW: You still haven't answer the question... what exploded to cause the Big Bang?  We'll get to your abysmal understanding of thermodynamics later.  

    What exploded to cause the Big Bang?

    Run away little bun-bun.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    So even if strata B doesn't have an igneous layer on top of it in N. America, it will in India.  It's a concept called stratigraphy and it's worth several junior to graduate level courses.  If fact, as I have mentioned, oil geologists use these concepts ALL the time to make their parent company TONS of money.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Sorry for LoL...and I already know that this stuff draws more money and more itching ears than even Benny Hinn

    As for as this 1977 study that supposedly shows all the strata in in your order, why arent there any other studies on it or no elaborations? You know I have already called the Cambrian rocks benthic but I'd say you have been hell bent on spending your time trying to bring others to your level of disbelief, which is nothing short of spooky sinister.

    Google atomic transmutation

    Of course everything is going to drain toward a gorge like that if any waterways are nearby,

    Oh and look up rapid rifting. Its happened all over the world and its happening dramatically but on a smaller scale as we speak
    Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 18 2011,23:58

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)
         
    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 17 2011,06:53)
         
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,23:11)
               
    Quote (blipey @ Nov. 16 2011,11:38)
    Hey forastero,

    I noticed that you still have absolutely no idea where your growth rate comes from.  I find it hard to believe that a rational person could stand behind an equation that includes variables that he does't even understand.

    Fortunately, you aren't a rational person.  However, you could take a first step in that direction by tell us how you derived THE GROWTH RATE IN YOUR POPULATION EQUATION.


    Thanks.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    It seems that the growth rate that I provided is about average compared to other estimates prehistoric and/or hunter gather estimates listed below. Thus, if we used yall's long ages, the populations would be vastly higher and man could grind a grave just about anywhere he dug

    < 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 >

    < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >

    < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Providing a number isn't the issue. Showing how the number was derived was the question. Understanding something about population dynamics is well down the road from that first step, apparently.

    Did you not bother to read < my critique > of the SciCre population argument? I provided the link earlier.

    Oh well, I guess I'll just post it here for you.

    ===


    Population Size and Time of Creation or Flood

    by Wesley R. Elsberry
    Last updated: 980413
    SciCre Population Dynamics: An Exercise in Selective and Misleading Use of Data
     
    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 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. Some are precise enough to restrict their conclusion to only humans, others leave how much is disproved unspecified.  Some utilize the numbers to infer intermediate population sizes.
     
    I am going to point out some problems with the SciCre population argument.  First, the argument assumes what it is supposed to prove. Second, all such arguments yield absurd values for population sizes at historical times.  Third, the argument ignores what is known about population dynamics from other species.  Fourth, final population size is an unreliable indicator of initial population time.  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.
     
    I will take as an example one such argument forwarded by William Williams in his 1925 book, "Evolution Disproved", and illustrate my points above.  This is available online at < http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilli....ms.html >
     
    First, the population argument assumes what it is supposed to prove.
     
               

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


        Now, according to the chronology of Hales, based on the Septuagint text, 5077 years have elapsed since the flood, and 5177 years since the ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife.  By dividing 5177 by 30.75, we find it requires an average of 168.3 years for the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the present population.  This is a reasonable average length of time.
     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     
    By this calculation, Williams has coupled his rate of increase to his specific timetable, the timetable that the argument is supposed to validate.  If the population argument were to mean something, the rate of increase would be derived from independent information, not from the information that is at issue.  It should surprise no one that Williams is able to show precise concordance of current population with a timetable since The Flood, since that is how he cooked the numbers to begin with.
     
    Second, all such arguments yield absurd values for population sizes at historical times.  I will first demonstrate that Williams utilizes his numbers to derive intermediate population sizes.
     
               

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


        The testimony of all the experts in the present Scopes trial in Tennessee (who escaped cross-examination) was to the effect that evolution was in harmony with some facts and therefore possibly true.  The above mathematical calculations prove that the evolution of man was certainly not true.  They fail to make their case even if we grant their claims.  These figures prove the Bible story, and scrap every guess of the great age and the brute origin of man.  It will be observed that the above calculations point to the unity of the race in the days of Noah, 5,177 years ago, rather than in the days of Adam 7,333 years ago, according to Hales' chronology.  If the race increased at the Jewish rate, not over 16,384 perished by the Flood, fewer than by many a modern catastrophe.  This most merciful providence of God started the race anew with a righteous head.
        Now, if there had been not flood to destroy the human race, then the descendants of Adam, in the 7333 years, would have been 16,384 times the 1,804,187,000 or 29,559,799,808,000; or computed at the Jewish rate of net increase for 7333 years since Adam, the population have been still greater, or 35,184,372,088,832.  These calculations are in perfect accord with the Scripture story of the special creation of man, and the destruction of the race by a flood.  Had it not been for the flood, the earth could not have sustained the descendants of Adam.  Is not his demonstration decisive and final?
     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     
    Now that we have verified that making inferences as to intermediate population values is an activity engaged in by even those people who forward these arguments, we can proceed to showing what the population argument implies about the human population size at various points in history.  The following follows from Williams set of population parameters: 5,177 years prior to 1925 for an initial population of 2, and a doubling time of 168.3 years.
     


    ---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

    World Population    Date     Event
     
                     17  2566 BC  Construction of Great Pyramid
                2,729  1332 BC  Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten dies
                5,000  1185 BC  Trojan War
                         ~1200 BC  Hebrew exodus, # of males = 603,550 (excluding Levites)
              32,971    776 BC  First Olympic games
              87,507    490 BC  Greek wars with Persia
            133,744    387 BC  Brennus' Sack of Rome
            586,678      28 BC  Augustus' census of Rome (70 to 100 million counted)
            655,683        1 AD  Nice date

    ---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



    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.
     
    Third, the argument ignores what is known about population dynamics from other species.  Various other species can be observed to sometimes reproduce exponentially, but we observe that such populations fluctuate, stabilize, or crash.  In no case do exponentially reproducing populations "take over the world" as SciCre'ists assure us would be the case if evolution were true.  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.  Just as the number of E. coli present in your gut will not tell us your birthday or the time of your last use of an antibiotic, so human population size is decoupled from when Homo sapiens arose, or even when a bottleneck may have occurred.

    Fourth, 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.
     
    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.  Human history does not record a global flood.  Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood.  Geological evidence shows no sign of a global flood.  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.
     
    In short, the SciCre population argument fails on many different criteria.  Honest creationists should eschew its use.

    ===

    None of your links show anyone thinking that continuous, constant exponential growth is an expected feature of any population. Why would you?

    Why aren't people assigned an age based on the numbers of E. coli in their gut? If your reasoning was adequate, that ought to be an established forensic tool. It isn't. Ruminate on that.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


         

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
     Providing a number isn't the issue. Showing how the number was derived was the question. Understanding something about population dynamics is well down the road from that first step, apparently.

    Did you not bother to read my critique of the SciCre population argument? I provided the link earlier.


    ---------------------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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Take it up with Williams & Co., the SciCre-ists who assert those figures should be taken seriously.


       
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    However, if Copy&paste formulas impresses you so, then why arnt you using them in your two Bible date critiques?

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    That doesn't seem to have any clear referent. Try again.

       
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    Moreover, the only formula you have, the Henry Morris exponential formula that you misconstrued here: < http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....20.html >

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    The Index was written by Mark Isaac, not me, and I see no "miscontrual".

       
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    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;

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    How precious.

    By the standards rules of mathematical expressions, the two are exactly equivalent. Parenthetical expressions are resolved, then exponentiation, then multiplication.

    But I'm not surprised that you think that there's a distinction to be made there; you seem to have a talent for incompetence.

       
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    and then you even said that you were doing us a favor by using the much larger growth rate

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    No; I said I was using Williams' numbers. You are again confusing what I said and what Mark Isaac said. Just like you couldn't distinguish between Darwin and a much more recent commentator early in your appearance on this BB.

       
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

       

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    World Population    Date     Event

               17  2566 BC  Construction of Great Pyramid
               2,729  1332 BC  Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten dies
               5,000  1185 BC  Trojan War
                        ~1200 BC  Hebrew exodus, # of males = 603,550 (excluding Levites)
             32,971    776 BC  First Olympic games
             87,507    490 BC  Greek wars with Persia
           133,744    387 BC  Brennus' Sack of Rome
           586,678      28 BC  Augustus' census of Rome (70 to 100 million counted)
           655,683        1 AD  Nice date

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Using the right formula and your Flood estimate of 3152 BC  or 5077 years from 1925, makes all of your dates above come out millions of times larger.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    No, like I said, I was using Williams' numbers. They don't come out larger because the end point was given as about 1.8 billion as of 1925. The rest of the numbers are fixed given his specification of a time span and calculation of a doubling period.


     
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    This site will work it out for you: < http://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias........ion.php >

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    GIGO.

     
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

         

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Third, the argument ignores what is known about population dynamics from other species.  Various other species can be observed to sometimes reproduce exponentially, but we observe that such populations fluctuate, stabilize, or crash.  In no case do exponentially reproducing populations "take over the world" as SciCre'ists assure us would be the case if evolution were true.  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.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    I am well aware of the balances of nature, but I am also well aware that your model would necessitate a lot more graves and bones than are discovered today.

    ---------------------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?

     
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    Funny, how Darwinism loves Malthusian uniformitarianism and exponential growth formula until us Bible believers use it.  Btw, the Malthusian Parameter is referred to as the Exponential Law that developed at least partly from studying compound interest.  Interestingly, Africa has the highest population growth even though it also has among the highest if not the highest rates of death via plague, war, AIDS, Malaria, etc etc..

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    You don't seem to be able to stay on topic. Oh, right, that's why you are posting in this thread. Plus you seem to be barking up the wrong tree if the first part was supposed to be a dig at me.

     
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

         

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Just as the number of E. coli present in your gut will not tell us your birthday or the time of your last use of an antibiotic, so human population size is decoupled from when Homo sapiens arose, or even when a bottleneck may have occurred.

    Why aren't people assigned an age based on the numbers of E. coli in their gut? If your reasoning was adequate, that ought to be an established forensic tool. It isn't. Ruminate on that.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    I am not sure what you mean in that first sentence.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    That is a problem: you are ignorant and don't have good reading comprehension.

     
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    There actually are dates based on endobacteria and parasites in humans but its not usually if at all  based on their population size.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    That's the message I've been trying to get across.

     
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    Compared to humans, these critters have a much higher adaptive rate due too their higher reproductive and genetic transfer rates. Plus they are often transferred and spread from all kinds of migrating animals.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    None of which has the least concern for the point.

     
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

         

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    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 crux of the argument comes when they use the derived rate of increase for comparison to the deep time that evolutionary timetables give.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Birth rate? death rate = rate of natural increase  and every body knows its used as an average in this case. Thus, your just being sinisterly melodramatic imo.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Hello? Williams urged people to reject evolution because of his "calculations" and assertions regarding human population. Showing that his reasoning was bogus isn't "melodramatic"; he really expected to sway people into error using that. No other SciCre population argument does any better than Williams; it's all bogus.
    Posted by: forastero on 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.

       

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Here is an abstract on cosmogenic 40k but its split between two pages
    < http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......5R.342N > < http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......00.html >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Irrelevant. Not terrestrial.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Nope. No mention of isochron dating at your reference. Who says 85Sr is used in isochron dating?
     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

    Cosmic rays do effect terrestrial isotopes
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Some terrestrial isotopes, yeah. But cosmic rays do not affect any terrestrial isotopes relevant to isochron dating
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Yeah see table 1. 85Sr
    ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f

    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....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
    Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 19 2011,00:29

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,20:46)
    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Priceless.  Absolutely priceless.
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 19 2011,02:02

    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 18 2011,23:58)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)
         
    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 17 2011,06:53)
           
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,23:11)
               
    Quote (blipey @ Nov. 16 2011,11:38)
    Hey forastero,

    I noticed that you still have absolutely no idea where your growth rate comes from.  I find it hard to believe that a rational person could stand behind an equation that includes variables that he does't even understand.

    Fortunately, you aren't a rational person.  However, you could take a first step in that direction by tell us how you derived THE GROWTH RATE IN YOUR POPULATION EQUATION.


    Thanks.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    It seems that the growth rate that I provided is about average compared to other estimates prehistoric and/or hunter gather estimates listed below. Thus, if we used yall's long ages, the populations would be vastly higher and man could grind a grave just about anywhere he dug

    < 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 >

    < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >

    < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Providing a number isn't the issue. Showing how the number was derived was the question. Understanding something about population dynamics is well down the road from that first step, apparently.

    Did you not bother to read < my critique > of the SciCre population argument? I provided the link earlier.

    Oh well, I guess I'll just post it here for you.

    ===


    Population Size and Time of Creation or Flood

    by Wesley R. Elsberry
    Last updated: 980413
    SciCre Population Dynamics: An Exercise in Selective and Misleading Use of Data
     
    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 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. Some are precise enough to restrict their conclusion to only humans, others leave how much is disproved unspecified.  Some utilize the numbers to infer intermediate population sizes.
     
    I am going to point out some problems with the SciCre population argument.  First, the argument assumes what it is supposed to prove. Second, all such arguments yield absurd values for population sizes at historical times.  Third, the argument ignores what is known about population dynamics from other species.  Fourth, final population size is an unreliable indicator of initial population time.  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.
     
    I will take as an example one such argument forwarded by William Williams in his 1925 book, "Evolution Disproved", and illustrate my points above.  This is available online at < http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilli....ms.html >
     
    First, the population argument assumes what it is supposed to prove.
     
               

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


        Now, according to the chronology of Hales, based on the Septuagint text, 5077 years have elapsed since the flood, and 5177 years since the ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife.  By dividing 5177 by 30.75, we find it requires an average of 168.3 years for the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the present population.  This is a reasonable average length of time.
     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     
    By this calculation, Williams has coupled his rate of increase to his specific timetable, the timetable that the argument is supposed to validate.  If the population argument were to mean something, the rate of increase would be derived from independent information, not from the information that is at issue.  It should surprise no one that Williams is able to show precise concordance of current population with a timetable since The Flood, since that is how he cooked the numbers to begin with.
     
    Second, all such arguments yield absurd values for population sizes at historical times.  I will first demonstrate that Williams utilizes his numbers to derive intermediate population sizes.
     
               

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


        The testimony of all the experts in the present Scopes trial in Tennessee (who escaped cross-examination) was to the effect that evolution was in harmony with some facts and therefore possibly true.  The above mathematical calculations prove that the evolution of man was certainly not true.  They fail to make their case even if we grant their claims.  These figures prove the Bible story, and scrap every guess of the great age and the brute origin of man.  It will be observed that the above calculations point to the unity of the race in the days of Noah, 5,177 years ago, rather than in the days of Adam 7,333 years ago, according to Hales' chronology.  If the race increased at the Jewish rate, not over 16,384 perished by the Flood, fewer than by many a modern catastrophe.  This most merciful providence of God started the race anew with a righteous head.
        Now, if there had been not flood to destroy the human race, then the descendants of Adam, in the 7333 years, would have been 16,384 times the 1,804,187,000 or 29,559,799,808,000; or computed at the Jewish rate of net increase for 7333 years since Adam, the population have been still greater, or 35,184,372,088,832.  These calculations are in perfect accord with the Scripture story of the special creation of man, and the destruction of the race by a flood.  Had it not been for the flood, the earth could not have sustained the descendants of Adam.  Is not his demonstration decisive and final?
     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     
    Now that we have verified that making inferences as to intermediate population values is an activity engaged in by even those people who forward these arguments, we can proceed to showing what the population argument implies about the human population size at various points in history.  The following follows from Williams set of population parameters: 5,177 years prior to 1925 for an initial population of 2, and a doubling time of 168.3 years.
     


    ---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

    World Population    Date     Event
     
                     17  2566 BC  Construction of Great Pyramid
                2,729  1332 BC  Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten dies
                5,000  1185 BC  Trojan War
                         ~1200 BC  Hebrew exodus, # of males = 603,550 (excluding Levites)
              32,971    776 BC  First Olympic games
              87,507    490 BC  Greek wars with Persia
            133,744    387 BC  Brennus' Sack of Rome
            586,678      28 BC  Augustus' census of Rome (70 to 100 million counted)
            655,683        1 AD  Nice date

    ---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



    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.
     
    Third, the argument ignores what is known about population dynamics from other species.  Various other species can be observed to sometimes reproduce exponentially, but we observe that such populations fluctuate, stabilize, or crash.  In no case do exponentially reproducing populations "take over the world" as SciCre'ists assure us would be the case if evolution were true.  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.  Just as the number of E. coli present in your gut will not tell us your birthday or the time of your last use of an antibiotic, so human population size is decoupled from when Homo sapiens arose, or even when a bottleneck may have occurred.

    Fourth, 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.
     
    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.  Human history does not record a global flood.  Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood.  Geological evidence shows no sign of a global flood.  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.
     
    In short, the SciCre population argument fails on many different criteria.  Honest creationists should eschew its use.

    ===

    None of your links show anyone thinking that continuous, constant exponential growth is an expected feature of any population. Why would you?

    Why aren't people assigned an age based on the numbers of E. coli in their gut? If your reasoning was adequate, that ought to be an established forensic tool. It isn't. Ruminate on that.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


           

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
     Providing a number isn't the issue. Showing how the number was derived was the question. Understanding something about population dynamics is well down the road from that first step, apparently.

    Did you not bother to read my critique of the SciCre population argument? I provided the link earlier.


    ---------------------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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Take it up with Williams & Co., the SciCre-ists who assert those figures should be taken seriously.


         
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    However, if Copy&paste formulas impresses you so, then why arnt you using them in your two Bible date critiques?

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    That doesn't seem to have any clear referent. Try again.

         
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    Moreover, the only formula you have, the Henry Morris exponential formula that you misconstrued here: < http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....20.html >

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    The Index was written by Mark Isaac, not me, and I see no "miscontrual".

         
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    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;

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    How precious.

    By the standards rules of mathematical expressions, the two are exactly equivalent. Parenthetical expressions are resolved, then exponentiation, then multiplication.

    But I'm not surprised that you think that there's a distinction to be made there; you seem to have a talent for incompetence.

         
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    and then you even said that you were doing us a favor by using the much larger growth rate

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    No; I said I was using Williams' numbers. You are again confusing what I said and what Mark Isaac said. Just like you couldn't distinguish between Darwin and a much more recent commentator early in your appearance on this BB.

         
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

       

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    World Population    Date     Event

               17  2566 BC  Construction of Great Pyramid
               2,729  1332 BC  Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten dies
               5,000  1185 BC  Trojan War
                        ~1200 BC  Hebrew exodus, # of males = 603,550 (excluding Levites)
             32,971    776 BC  First Olympic games
             87,507    490 BC  Greek wars with Persia
           133,744    387 BC  Brennus' Sack of Rome
           586,678      28 BC  Augustus' census of Rome (70 to 100 million counted)
           655,683        1 AD  Nice date

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Using the right formula and your Flood estimate of 3152 BC  or 5077 years from 1925, makes all of your dates above come out millions of times larger.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    No, like I said, I was using Williams' numbers. They don't come out larger because the end point was given as about 1.8 billion as of 1925. The rest of the numbers are fixed given his specification of a time span and calculation of a doubling period.


       
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    This site will work it out for you: < http://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias........ion.php >

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    GIGO.

       
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

           

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Third, the argument ignores what is known about population dynamics from other species.  Various other species can be observed to sometimes reproduce exponentially, but we observe that such populations fluctuate, stabilize, or crash.  In no case do exponentially reproducing populations "take over the world" as SciCre'ists assure us would be the case if evolution were true.  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.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    I am well aware of the balances of nature, but I am also well aware that your model would necessitate a lot more graves and bones than are discovered today.

    ---------------------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?

       
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    Funny, how Darwinism loves Malthusian uniformitarianism and exponential growth formula until us Bible believers use it.  Btw, the Malthusian Parameter is referred to as the Exponential Law that developed at least partly from studying compound interest.  Interestingly, Africa has the highest population growth even though it also has among the highest if not the highest rates of death via plague, war, AIDS, Malaria, etc etc..

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    You don't seem to be able to stay on topic. Oh, right, that's why you are posting in this thread. Plus you seem to be barking up the wrong tree if the first part was supposed to be a dig at me.

       
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

           

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Just as the number of E. coli present in your gut will not tell us your birthday or the time of your last use of an antibiotic, so human population size is decoupled from when Homo sapiens arose, or even when a bottleneck may have occurred.

    Why aren't people assigned an age based on the numbers of E. coli in their gut? If your reasoning was adequate, that ought to be an established forensic tool. It isn't. Ruminate on that.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    I am not sure what you mean in that first sentence.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    That is a problem: you are ignorant and don't have good reading comprehension.

       
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    There actually are dates based on endobacteria and parasites in humans but its not usually if at all  based on their population size.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    That's the message I've been trying to get across.

       
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    Compared to humans, these critters have a much higher adaptive rate due too their higher reproductive and genetic transfer rates. Plus they are often transferred and spread from all kinds of migrating animals.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    None of which has the least concern for the point.

       
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

           

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    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 crux of the argument comes when they use the derived rate of increase for comparison to the deep time that evolutionary timetables give.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Birth rate? death rate = rate of natural increase  and every body knows its used as an average in this case. Thus, your just being sinisterly melodramatic imo.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Hello? Williams urged people to reject evolution because of his "calculations" and assertions regarding human population. Showing that his reasoning was bogus isn't "melodramatic"; he really expected to sway people into error using that. No other SciCre population argument does any better than Williams; it's all bogus.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    What formulas? You havnt presented any formulas except the one by Henry Morris that you claim to be generous but still come up short for the sheeple



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    World Population    Date     Event

                    17  2566 BC  Construction of Great Pyramid
               2,729  1332 BC  Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten dies
               5,000  1185 BC  Trojan War
                        ~1200 BC  Hebrew exodus, # of males = 603,550 (excluding Levites)
             32,971    776 BC  First Olympic games
             87,507    490 BC  Greek wars with Persia
           133,744    387 BC  Brennus' Sack of Rome
           586,678      28 BC  Augustus' census of Rome (70 to 100 million counted)
           655,683        1 AD  Nice date
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Again, with the Morris formula 8(1+r/100)n

    If the Flood occurred as you quoted in 3152 bc  or 5077 years (from 1925) your  1 AD Nice date should actually be 53,767,103.    All of your other dates are equally way off too so what gives?
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 19 2011,02:32

    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 18 2011,07:11)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,04:17)
    Again the typical geological map including of North Dakota  dont have that type of statigraphy
    < http://0.tqn.com/d....90....900.jpg >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Trust you to use a map labeled "Surface Geology" to be making an overarching blanket statement about stratigraphy.

    You don't find something except in the places you do.

    As the Scots lawyer declared to the jury, "The prosecutor has three witnesses who will testify that they saw my client kill him. But I will produce thirty witnesses who will testify that they dinna see my client kill him!"
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    The geological maps that realist use to make money are all surface maps. The geological maps used for propaganda are called geologic columns
    Posted by: Amadan on Nov. 19 2011,03:30

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,04:46)
    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;
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    That really deserves an award of the coveted CreoCup:


    Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 19 2011,05:09

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,02:02)
     
    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 18 2011,23:58)
     
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)
             
    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 17 2011,06:53)
             
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,23:11)
                   
    Quote (blipey @ Nov. 16 2011,11:38)
    Hey forastero,

    I noticed that you still have absolutely no idea where your growth rate comes from.  I find it hard to believe that a rational person could stand behind an equation that includes variables that he does't even understand.

    Fortunately, you aren't a rational person.  However, you could take a first step in that direction by tell us how you derived THE GROWTH RATE IN YOUR POPULATION EQUATION.


    Thanks.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    It seems that the growth rate that I provided is about average compared to other estimates prehistoric and/or hunter gather estimates listed below. Thus, if we used yall's long ages, the populations would be vastly higher and man could grind a grave just about anywhere he dug

    < 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 >

    < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >

    < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Providing a number isn't the issue. Showing how the number was derived was the question. Understanding something about population dynamics is well down the road from that first step, apparently.

    Did you not bother to read < my critique > of the SciCre population argument? I provided the link earlier.

    Oh well, I guess I'll just post it here for you.

    ===


    Population Size and Time of Creation or Flood

    by Wesley R. Elsberry
    Last updated: 980413
    SciCre Population Dynamics: An Exercise in Selective and Misleading Use of Data
     
    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 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. Some are precise enough to restrict their conclusion to only humans, others leave how much is disproved unspecified.  Some utilize the numbers to infer intermediate population sizes.
     
    I am going to point out some problems with the SciCre population argument.  First, the argument assumes what it is supposed to prove. Second, all such arguments yield absurd values for population sizes at historical times.  Third, the argument ignores what is known about population dynamics from other species.  Fourth, final population size is an unreliable indicator of initial population time.  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.
     
    I will take as an example one such argument forwarded by William Williams in his 1925 book, "Evolution Disproved", and illustrate my points above.  This is available online at < http://www.ldolphin.org/wmwilli....ms.html >
     
    First, the population argument assumes what it is supposed to prove.
     
                   

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


        Now, according to the chronology of Hales, based on the Septuagint text, 5077 years have elapsed since the flood, and 5177 years since the ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife.  By dividing 5177 by 30.75, we find it requires an average of 168.3 years for the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the present population.  This is a reasonable average length of time.
     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     
    By this calculation, Williams has coupled his rate of increase to his specific timetable, the timetable that the argument is supposed to validate.  If the population argument were to mean something, the rate of increase would be derived from independent information, not from the information that is at issue.  It should surprise no one that Williams is able to show precise concordance of current population with a timetable since The Flood, since that is how he cooked the numbers to begin with.
     
    Second, all such arguments yield absurd values for population sizes at historical times.  I will first demonstrate that Williams utilizes his numbers to derive intermediate population sizes.
     
                   

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


        The testimony of all the experts in the present Scopes trial in Tennessee (who escaped cross-examination) was to the effect that evolution was in harmony with some facts and therefore possibly true.  The above mathematical calculations prove that the evolution of man was certainly not true.  They fail to make their case even if we grant their claims.  These figures prove the Bible story, and scrap every guess of the great age and the brute origin of man.  It will be observed that the above calculations point to the unity of the race in the days of Noah, 5,177 years ago, rather than in the days of Adam 7,333 years ago, according to Hales' chronology.  If the race increased at the Jewish rate, not over 16,384 perished by the Flood, fewer than by many a modern catastrophe.  This most merciful providence of God started the race anew with a righteous head.
        Now, if there had been not flood to destroy the human race, then the descendants of Adam, in the 7333 years, would have been 16,384 times the 1,804,187,000 or 29,559,799,808,000; or computed at the Jewish rate of net increase for 7333 years since Adam, the population have been still greater, or 35,184,372,088,832.  These calculations are in perfect accord with the Scripture story of the special creation of man, and the destruction of the race by a flood.  Had it not been for the flood, the earth could not have sustained the descendants of Adam.  Is not his demonstration decisive and final?
     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     
    Now that we have verified that making inferences as to intermediate population values is an activity engaged in by even those people who forward these arguments, we can proceed to showing what the population argument implies about the human population size at various points in history.  The following follows from Williams set of population parameters: 5,177 years prior to 1925 for an initial population of 2, and a doubling time of 168.3 years.
     


    ---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------

    World Population    Date     Event
     
                     17  2566 BC  Construction of Great Pyramid
                2,729  1332 BC  Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten dies
                5,000  1185 BC  Trojan War
                         ~1200 BC  Hebrew exodus, # of males = 603,550 (excluding Levites)
              32,971    776 BC  First Olympic games
              87,507    490 BC  Greek wars with Persia
            133,744    387 BC  Brennus' Sack of Rome
            586,678      28 BC  Augustus' census of Rome (70 to 100 million counted)
            655,683        1 AD  Nice date

    ---------------------CODE SAMPLE-------------------



    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.
     
    Third, the argument ignores what is known about population dynamics from other species.  Various other species can be observed to sometimes reproduce exponentially, but we observe that such populations fluctuate, stabilize, or crash.  In no case do exponentially reproducing populations "take over the world" as SciCre'ists assure us would be the case if evolution were true.  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.  Just as the number of E. coli present in your gut will not tell us your birthday or the time of your last use of an antibiotic, so human population size is decoupled from when Homo sapiens arose, or even when a bottleneck may have occurred.

    Fourth, 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.
     
    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.  Human history does not record a global flood.  Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood.  Geological evidence shows no sign of a global flood.  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.
     
    In short, the SciCre population argument fails on many different criteria.  Honest creationists should eschew its use.

    ===

    None of your links show anyone thinking that continuous, constant exponential growth is an expected feature of any population. Why would you?

    Why aren't people assigned an age based on the numbers of E. coli in their gut? If your reasoning was adequate, that ought to be an established forensic tool. It isn't. Ruminate on that.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


             

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
     Providing a number isn't the issue. Showing how the number was derived was the question. Understanding something about population dynamics is well down the road from that first step, apparently.

    Did you not bother to read my critique of the SciCre population argument? I provided the link earlier.


    ---------------------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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Take it up with Williams & Co., the SciCre-ists who assert those figures should be taken seriously.


           
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    However, if Copy&paste formulas impresses you so, then why arnt you using them in your two Bible date critiques?

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    That doesn't seem to have any clear referent. Try again.

           
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    Moreover, the only formula you have, the Henry Morris exponential formula that you misconstrued here: < http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....20.html >

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    The Index was written by Mark Isaac, not me, and I see no "miscontrual".

           
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    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;

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    How precious.

    By the standards rules of mathematical expressions, the two are exactly equivalent. Parenthetical expressions are resolved, then exponentiation, then multiplication.

    But I'm not surprised that you think that there's a distinction to be made there; you seem to have a talent for incompetence.

           
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    and then you even said that you were doing us a favor by using the much larger growth rate

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    No; I said I was using Williams' numbers. You are again confusing what I said and what Mark Isaac said. Just like you couldn't distinguish between Darwin and a much more recent commentator early in your appearance on this BB.

           
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

           

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    World Population    Date     Event

               17  2566 BC  Construction of Great Pyramid
               2,729  1332 BC  Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten dies
               5,000  1185 BC  Trojan War
                        ~1200 BC  Hebrew exodus, # of males = 603,550 (excluding Levites)
             32,971    776 BC  First Olympic games
             87,507    490 BC  Greek wars with Persia
           133,744    387 BC  Brennus' Sack of Rome
           586,678      28 BC  Augustus' census of Rome (70 to 100 million counted)
           655,683        1 AD  Nice date

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Using the right formula and your Flood estimate of 3152 BC  or 5077 years from 1925, makes all of your dates above come out millions of times larger.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    No, like I said, I was using Williams' numbers. They don't come out larger because the end point was given as about 1.8 billion as of 1925. The rest of the numbers are fixed given his specification of a time span and calculation of a doubling period.


         
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    This site will work it out for you: < http://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias........ion.php >

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    GIGO.

         
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

             

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Third, the argument ignores what is known about population dynamics from other species.  Various other species can be observed to sometimes reproduce exponentially, but we observe that such populations fluctuate, stabilize, or crash.  In no case do exponentially reproducing populations "take over the world" as SciCre'ists assure us would be the case if evolution were true.  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.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    I am well aware of the balances of nature, but I am also well aware that your model would necessitate a lot more graves and bones than are discovered today.

    ---------------------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?

         
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    Funny, how Darwinism loves Malthusian uniformitarianism and exponential growth formula until us Bible believers use it.  Btw, the Malthusian Parameter is referred to as the Exponential Law that developed at least partly from studying compound interest.  Interestingly, Africa has the highest population growth even though it also has among the highest if not the highest rates of death via plague, war, AIDS, Malaria, etc etc..

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    You don't seem to be able to stay on topic. Oh, right, that's why you are posting in this thread. Plus you seem to be barking up the wrong tree if the first part was supposed to be a dig at me.

         
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

             

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Just as the number of E. coli present in your gut will not tell us your birthday or the time of your last use of an antibiotic, so human population size is decoupled from when Homo sapiens arose, or even when a bottleneck may have occurred.

    Why aren't people assigned an age based on the numbers of E. coli in their gut? If your reasoning was adequate, that ought to be an established forensic tool. It isn't. Ruminate on that.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    I am not sure what you mean in that first sentence.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    That is a problem: you are ignorant and don't have good reading comprehension.

         
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    There actually are dates based on endobacteria and parasites in humans but its not usually if at all  based on their population size.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    That's the message I've been trying to get across.

         
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    Compared to humans, these critters have a much higher adaptive rate due too their higher reproductive and genetic transfer rates. Plus they are often transferred and spread from all kinds of migrating animals.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    None of which has the least concern for the point.

         
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

             

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    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 crux of the argument comes when they use the derived rate of increase for comparison to the deep time that evolutionary timetables give.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Birth rate? death rate = rate of natural increase  and every body knows its used as an average in this case. Thus, your just being sinisterly melodramatic imo.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Hello? Williams urged people to reject evolution because of his "calculations" and assertions regarding human population. Showing that his reasoning was bogus isn't "melodramatic"; he really expected to sway people into error using that. No other SciCre population argument does any better than Williams; it's all bogus.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    What formulas? You havnt presented any formulas except the one by Henry Morris that you claim to be generous but still come up short for the sheeple

     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    World Population    Date     Event

                    17  2566 BC  Construction of Great Pyramid
               2,729  1332 BC  Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten dies
               5,000  1185 BC  Trojan War
                        ~1200 BC  Hebrew exodus, # of males = 603,550 (excluding Levites)
             32,971    776 BC  First Olympic games
             87,507    490 BC  Greek wars with Persia
           133,744    387 BC  Brennus' Sack of Rome
           586,678      28 BC  Augustus' census of Rome (70 to 100 million counted)
           655,683        1 AD  Nice date
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Again, with the Morris formula 8(1+r/100)n

    If the Flood occurred as you quoted in 3152 bc  or 5077 years (from 1925) your  1 AD Nice date should actually be 53,767,103.    All of your other dates are equally way off too so what gives?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 19 2011,05:10

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,02:32)
    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 18 2011,07:11)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,04:17)
    Again the typical geological map including of North Dakota  dont have that type of statigraphy
    < http://0.tqn.com/d....90....900.jpg >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Trust you to use a map labeled "Surface Geology" to be making an overarching blanket statement about stratigraphy.

    You don't find something except in the places you do.

    As the Scots lawyer declared to the jury, "The prosecutor has three witnesses who will testify that they saw my client kill him. But I will produce thirty witnesses who will testify that they dinna see my client kill him!"
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    The geological maps that realist use to make money are all surface maps. The geological maps used for propaganda are called geologic columns
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    That's not a rebuttal, you know. Well, you probably don't, but so it goes.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 19 2011,05:55

    Good morning Little Bunny! Rub those sleepies from your eyes. It's time to hide from Farmer Bill's scary questions!

    Today, you can hide in the big barn. Or, you can run into the briar patch. Remember, don't jump into the rain barrel!

    Little Bunny,

    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?

    Hippity-hop, hippity-hop, Little Bunny!
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 19 2011,07:49

    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,00:58)
         
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    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;

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    How precious.

    By the standards rules of mathematical expressions, the two are exactly equivalent. Parenthetical expressions are resolved, then exponentiation, then multiplication.

    But I'm not surprised that you think that there's a distinction to be made there; you seem to have a talent for incompetence.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




    GEEEEEEAAAAAAHD this sombitch is stupid

    of course he is a poe
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 19 2011,07:49

    f,
    At this point there is no more to be said, so until you actually answer some of the many questions that have been asked it's just to copy+paste what you've been avoiding as many times as is required.

    I believe every question you've asked has been answered. So now it's your turn.

    Just FYI...
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 19 2011,07:50

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,23:18)
    Sorry for LoL...and I already know that this stuff draws more money and more itching ears than even Benny Hinn

    As for as this 1977 study that supposedly shows all the strata in in your order, why arent there any other studies on it or no elaborations? You know I have already called the Cambrian rocks benthic but I'd say you have been hell bent on spending your time trying to bring others to your level of disbelief, which is nothing short of spooky sinister.

    Google atomic transmutation

    Of course everything is going to drain toward a gorge like that if any waterways are nearby,

    Oh and look up rapid rifting. Its happened all over the world and its happening dramatically but on a smaller scale as we speak
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    blah blah blah


    None of that has anything to do with what we are talking about.  You haven't answered anything.

    As far as other studies or elaborations... so you are admitting that you haven't even looked?  Nice.  Good job on the research front there buddy.

    I call my car a Ferrari... it doesn't make it an actual Ferrari.  You can call stuff whatever you want. You still can't support your claims.

    Why?

    Yes, water drains.  Draining water does not create meandering paths in solid limestone in less than 1 year.

    And we know where rapid rifting occurs.  So?
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 19 2011,08:04

    BTW: You might find this article interesting: < http://www.rogtecmagazine.com/blog....lopment >

    It explains the difference between drilling a production bore hole and a core sample bore hole.

    Notice the first sentence in the article


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Drilled out and delivered to the surface, a rock specimen or a core, is, perhaps, the only reliable source of geological information on the oil-and-gas bearing formation being studied.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    BTW: for, this is not to open up a new topic of conversation, this is merely to remind you and everyone else, that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
    Posted by: JonF on 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.

                 

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Here is an abstract on cosmogenic 40k but its split between two pages
    < http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......5R.342N > < http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......00.html >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Irrelevant. Not terrestrial.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Nope. No mention of isochron dating at your reference. Who says 85Sr is used in isochron dating?
             

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

    Cosmic rays do effect terrestrial isotopes
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Some terrestrial isotopes, yeah. But cosmic rays do not affect any terrestrial isotopes relevant to isochron dating
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Yeah see table 1. 85Sr
    <a href="" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f</a>
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Broken link.
     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    and for 87Sr explain the two versions < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium >[/url
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
         

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    < http://authors.library.caltech.edu/13066......6....66 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
         

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    < http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article....011.htm >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    No mention of cosmogenesis or any cosmogenic nuclides.
         

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on 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.

         

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Here is an abstract on cosmogenic 40k but its split between two pages
    < http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......5R.342N > < http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......00.html >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Irrelevant. Not terrestrial.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Nope. No mention of isochron dating at your reference. Who says 85Sr is used in isochron dating?
     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

    Cosmic rays do effect terrestrial isotopes
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Some terrestrial isotopes, yeah. But cosmic rays do not affect any terrestrial isotopes relevant to isochron dating
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 19 2011,13:15

    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 19 2011,06:49)
    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,00:58)
         
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 18 2011,22:46)

    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;

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    How precious.

    By the standards rules of mathematical expressions, the two are exactly equivalent. Parenthetical expressions are resolved, then exponentiation, then multiplication.

    But I'm not surprised that you think that there's a distinction to be made there; you seem to have a talent for incompetence.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




    GEEEEEEAAAAAAHD this sombitch is stupid

    of course he is a poe
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    "Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here!!!!"
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 19 2011,15:02

    Poetic interlude:

    Chapter IV: Mrs. Farmer Bill and the Hot Apple Pie

    Look, Little Bunny! Here comes Mrs. Farmer Bill!

    She is gray. She is careworn.

    But she has apple pie!

    Her cheeks are aglow! There's a shine in her eye!

    MRS. FARMER BILL: "Little Bunny! Why are you hiding?"

    She knows Little Bunny is afeared of stern Bill. His overalls, face, his crossed red suspenders. His hands, big as fry pans. His argument-enders.

    MRS. FARMER BILL: "Come out L'il Bunny! Bill's tall and he's lean, but he really just wants to know what you mean! He's old and he's tired and he has some bad ailments. But his wits are about him! What you say has entailments!"

    The Bunny just stands there, his glance all askance. He wants to reply, but just can't take that chance.

    MRS. FARMER BILL: "Dear Bunny, we know: the world's large, even sizable. The oughts of your thoughts are plainly surmisable. If you say'um (we know), they'll be all out of plumb. There's going to be laughter! They'll say you are dumb! But in this world we come out and we say what we say. That's all that Bill wants, then he'll be on his way."
     
    Little Bunny, he stands there, his front paws akimbo. He wants very much to leave self-imposed limbo. But the things that he says! They don't make any sense! To really believe them you'd have to be dense!

    (Mrs. Bill places the pie on the table. She knows that he'll snatch it as soon as he's able.)

    MRS. FARMER BILL: "OK, Little Bunny, OK, have it your way. Hide under a bucket. Hide in the bailed hay. But in this world we come out and we say what we say. That's all that Bill wants, then he'll be on his way."

    Mrs. Bill ambles inside, her soul ill at ease. Not the rabbit - fuck him - it's all that pie grease. Then she smiles as she remembers her Farmer Bill's way: "In this world we come out and we say what we say."

    But the Bunny. He's quiet. Like an old mausoleum. Like a mime robbing banks hoping no one will see him. Like a point that is mute (as he says when's he speaking). Like Little Bunny these days, when he feels like a weakling.
    Posted by: forastero on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?



    ---------------------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.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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



    ---------------------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)
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?



    ---------------------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."
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.



    ---------------------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.  
    ---------------------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.
    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 >
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 19 2011,15:47

    forastero! Oh, HAI!

    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?
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 19 2011,15:59

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,16:26)
    your many posts here prove your boundless beefs with SciCre
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Uh, its Wesley's board, Einstein.
    Posted by: noncarborundum on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 19 2011,16:24

    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.

                 

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Here is an abstract on cosmogenic 40k but its split between two pages
    < http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......5R.342N > < http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......00.html >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Irrelevant. Not terrestrial.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Nope. No mention of isochron dating at your reference. Who says 85Sr is used in isochron dating?
               

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

    Cosmic rays do effect terrestrial isotopes
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Some terrestrial isotopes, yeah. But cosmic rays do not affect any terrestrial isotopes relevant to isochron dating
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Yeah see table 1. 85Sr
    <a href="" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f</a>
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Broken link.
     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    and for 87Sr explain the two versions < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium >[/url
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
           

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    < http://authors.library.caltech.edu/13066......6....66 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
           

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    < http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article....011.htm >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    No mention of cosmogenesis or any cosmogenic nuclides.
           

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    <

    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
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 19 2011,16:26

    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.

         

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Here is an abstract on cosmogenic 40k but its split between two pages
    < http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......5R.342N > < http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......00.html >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Irrelevant. Not terrestrial.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Nope. No mention of isochron dating at your reference. Who says 85Sr is used in isochron dating?
       

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

    Cosmic rays do effect terrestrial isotopes
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Some terrestrial isotopes, yeah. But cosmic rays do not affect any terrestrial isotopes relevant to isochron dating
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Thats a small start but that I aint buying
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 19 2011,16:31

    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?
    ---------------------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.

    ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f
    Posted by: forastero on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    It looked like  another of his vague but sneaky illusions
    Posted by: JonF on 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.

                     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Here is an abstract on cosmogenic 40k but its split between two pages
    < http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......5R.342N > < http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......00.html >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Irrelevant. Not terrestrial.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Nope. No mention of isochron dating at your reference. Who says 85Sr is used in isochron dating?
                 

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

    Cosmic rays do effect terrestrial isotopes
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Some terrestrial isotopes, yeah. But cosmic rays do not affect any terrestrial isotopes relevant to isochron dating
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Yeah see table 1. 85Sr
    <a href="" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f</a>
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Broken link.
         

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    and for 87Sr explain the two versions < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium >[/url
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
             

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    < http://authors.library.caltech.edu/13066......6....66 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
             

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    < http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article....011.htm >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    No mention of cosmogenesis or any cosmogenic nuclides.
             

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    <

    <a href="http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Here is the 85 Sr in table 1 again                         <a href="" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f</a>
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: JonF on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Thats a small start but that I aint buying
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    No, you're selling, and doing a poor job of it. Did you wonder why all the Google results for "cosmogenic 40K" involve meteorites?
    Posted by: JonF on Nov. 19 2011,17:32

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,17:31)
    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?[/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>
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    All I get is the abstract, with no mention of 85Sr.
    Posted by: forastero on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Thats a small start but that I aint buying
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    No, you're selling, and doing a poor job of it. Did you wonder why all the Google results for "cosmogenic 40K" involve meteorites?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 19 2011,18:28

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,16:44)
    It looked like  another of his vague but sneaky illusions
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 19 2011,18:43

    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.

                     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Here is an abstract on cosmogenic 40k but its split between two pages
    < http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......5R.342N > < http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......00.html >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Irrelevant. Not terrestrial.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Nope. No mention of isochron dating at your reference. Who says 85Sr is used in isochron dating?
                   

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

    Cosmic rays do effect terrestrial isotopes
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Some terrestrial isotopes, yeah. But cosmic rays do not affect any terrestrial isotopes relevant to isochron dating
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Yeah see table 1. 85Sr
    <a href="" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f</a>
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Broken link.
         

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    and for 87Sr explain the two versions < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium >[/url
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
               

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    < http://authors.library.caltech.edu/13066......6....66 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
               

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    < http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article....011.htm >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    No mention of cosmogenesis or any cosmogenic nuclides.
               

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    <

    <a href="http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Here is the 85 Sr in table 1 again                         <a href="" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f</a>
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: blipey on Nov. 19 2011,19:05

    Hey Fory,

    You had time between turpentine huffings to tell us how you derived the growth rate in your population equation?  Bonus points for telling me which is larger:

    A) 6(4y)

    B) 6 X (4 X y)
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 19 2011,19:25

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    It looked like  another of his vague but sneaky illusions
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Texas Teach on Nov. 19 2011,19:56

    Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2011,18:28)
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,16:44)
    It looked like  another of his vague but sneaky illusions
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Careful.  You're starting to sound like k.e.

    What?  Oh...that kind of staff?  Nevermind.
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 19 2011,20:12

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Thats a small start but that I aint buying
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    No, you're selling, and doing a poor job of it. Did you wonder why all the Google results for "cosmogenic 40K" involve meteorites?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    You mean one article


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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 >


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Wasn't it you trying to cite papers of people investigating changing decay rates, AKA testing it?  Yes it was.  Forastero - soopergenius!
    Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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

    ---------------------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.

    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)
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?

    ---------------------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.

    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."
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.  
    ---------------------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.
    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    I see that you don't comprehend what "self-contained" means. I think I could have guessed that without confirmation.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 19 2011,22:21

    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.
    Posted by: Reed on Nov. 19 2011,23:56

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    It looked like  another of his vague but sneaky illusions
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Quack on Nov. 20 2011,05:35



    ---------------------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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JonF on Nov. 20 2011,08:15

    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.

                           

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Here is an abstract on cosmogenic 40k but its split between two pages
    < http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......5R.342N > < http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full.......00.html >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Irrelevant. Not terrestrial.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Nope. No mention of isochron dating at your reference. Who says 85Sr is used in isochron dating?
                         

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------

    Cosmic rays do effect terrestrial isotopes
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Some terrestrial isotopes, yeah. But cosmic rays do not affect any terrestrial isotopes relevant to isochron dating
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Yeah see table 1. 85Sr
    <a href="" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f</a>
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Broken link.
               

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    and for 87Sr explain the two versions < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium >[/url
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
                     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    < http://authors.library.caltech.edu/13066......6....66 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
                     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    < http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article....011.htm >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    No mention of cosmogenesis or any cosmogenic nuclides.
                     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    <

    <a href="http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Here is the 85 Sr in table 1 again                         <a href="" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f</a>
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Are you actually saying that it wouldnt effect isochron dating if true
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JonF on Nov. 20 2011,08:31

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Thats a small start but that I aint buying
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    No, you're selling, and doing a poor job of it. Did you wonder why all the Google results for "cosmogenic 40K" involve meteorites?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    You mean one article and it doesnt seem to favor your argument. Plus with your attitude no one will ever investigate it
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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!)
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Nov. 20 2011,12:46

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




    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-------------------



    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!

       
    Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 20 2011,13:07

    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
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 20 2011,23:31

    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?
    Posted by: JohnW on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Yes - I just looked it up and it's what I always referred to as "neutron capture".  
    Isotope + n -> heavier isotope -> decay or fission
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 21 2011,10:36

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Yes - I just looked it up and it's what I always referred to as "neutron capture".  
    Isotope + n -> heavier isotope -> decay or fission
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    forastero's speech is almost like real science... fiction that is.
    Posted by: forastero on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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

    ---------------------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.

     
    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)
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?

    ---------------------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.

    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."
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.  
    ---------------------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.
    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    I see that you don't comprehend what "self-contained" means. I think I could have guessed that without confirmation.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------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.
    < 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.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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).
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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).
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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)?
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 22 2011,22:48

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 23 2011,00:16

    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Look for that 227,000/1 ratio.
    Posted by: forastero on 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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    No Wesley, but I bet my creationist claims that receive no debate will be mined for your archive on a later date.
    Posted by: forastero on 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).
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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)?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: Quack on Nov. 23 2011,03:54



    ---------------------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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Indiumas on 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.
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 23 2011,05:39

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Don't flatter yourself. Nothing you've said is original.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 23 2011,08:08

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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).
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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)?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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
    Posted by: blipey on 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
    Posted by: jeffox on 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  



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    REALLY???!!!??




    You don't know any real geologists, do you, Forastero. . .
    Posted by: blipey on 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  



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    REALLY???!!!??




    You don't know any real geologists, do you, Forastero. . .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    or any real capitalists
    Posted by: paragwinn on Nov. 23 2011,14:20

    Written on the staff of forastero:
     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    The geological maps that realist use to make money are all surface maps.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    IMMORTALIZED
    Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    No Wesley, but I bet my creationist claims that receive no debate will be mined for your archive on a later date.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. [...]

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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

    [...]


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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

    [...]


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    But remember, to forastero 6 = 45,000,000 so, he's right... in his own little (very tiny) world.
    Posted by: Texas Teach on 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

    [...]


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    But remember, to forastero 6 = 45,000,000 so, he's right... in his own little (very tiny) world.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on 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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    No Wesley, but I bet my creationist claims that receive no debate will be mined for your archive on a later date.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. [...]

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 23 2011,19:44

    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  



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    REALLY???!!!??




    You don't know any real geologists, do you, Forastero. . .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    or any real capitalists
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    So lets see these depth maps and how deep they actually go
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 23 2011,19:47

    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

    [...]


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    But remember, to forastero 6 = 45,000,000 so, he's right... in his own little (very tiny) world.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    1.005 does equal  (1 + .005)
    Posted by: forastero on 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
    ---------------------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
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 23 2011,19:56

    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).
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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)?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Where did anyone say that?

    Btw, you have havent provided any proof so you are just conforming like Kermit
    Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 23 2011,20:34

    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?
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 23 2011,20:50

    all quotes by forastero



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Why are you avoiding the real issues?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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)
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    Posted by: blipey on Nov. 23 2011,21:05

    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
    ---------------------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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 23 2011,21:57

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 23 2011,20:43)
    Why are you avoiding the real issues?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    LOL!!
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 24 2011,00:24

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    Posted by: Wolfhound on Nov. 24 2011,00:46

    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.
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 24 2011,02:01

    Hmm those links were working the other day. Here are some more that work


    < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....ufnMNDg >
    < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....KqHWJU0 >
    < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....-1emRic >
    < http://www.nih.gov/news.......-26.htm >
    [URL=http://www.davidlgray.info/blog/2010/08/the-liberal-agenda-against-black-americans-why-obama-jesse-jackson-tom-joyner-al-shaprton-

    the-naacp-and-the-rest-of-the-so-called-black-leaders-have-endorsed-the-black-american-gen

    ecide/]http://www.davidlgray.info/blog....enecide[/URL]
    < http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/categor....enocide >
    < http://www.humanevents.com/article....d=26220 >
    < http://www.christianexaminer.com/Article....08.html >
    < http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger0....03.html >
    < http://www.prisonplanet.com/nasa-gl....de.html >
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 24 2011,03:25

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Posted by: Indiumas on 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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 24 2011,06:38

    Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 24 2011,01:46)
    Oh, and a human/god scapegoat that rose from the dead.  Musn't forget that particular whopper.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I'm kind of partial to "Invisible Haploid Zombie Who Lives in the Sky and Watches Me Masturbate", but to each her own.
    Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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

    ---------------------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.

             
    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)
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?

    ---------------------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.

    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."
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.  
    ---------------------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.
    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    I see that you don't comprehend what "self-contained" means. I think I could have guessed that without confirmation.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


           

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Sorry if I missed something. I’ll try to be more thorough on this interesting topic.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------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.
    < 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-------------------



    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.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Secondly, Williams simply had the doubling times too small but you deny it to a point that disagrees even with most evolutionists.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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:

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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..

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Unless there is a global event like the Flood, it does.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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 >

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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…

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    This is another gross misinterpretation and/or stereotype

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Sorry, that has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of Williams' argument, and thus isn't topical.

     
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32)

    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-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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 >

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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 >

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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).
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 24 2011,08:08

    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    No Wesley, but I bet my creationist claims that receive no debate will be mined for your archive on a later date.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. [...]

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    Posted by: Texas Teach on Nov. 24 2011,09:09

    The only thing that would make Wes' take down above better is if he'd signed it < "Summer Glau" >.
    Posted by: forastero on 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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 24 2011,09:35

    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: Indiumas on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    Posted by: blipey on Nov. 24 2011,10:47

    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.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 24 2011,11:01

    Run, Little Bunny, run!
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 24 2011,12:32

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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

    ---------------------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.

               
    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)
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?

    ---------------------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.

    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."
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.  
    ---------------------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.
    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    I see that you don't comprehend what "self-contained" means. I think I could have guessed that without confirmation.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


             

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Sorry if I missed something. I’ll try to be more thorough on this interesting topic.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------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.
    < 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-------------------



    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.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Secondly, Williams simply had the doubling times too small but you deny it to a point that disagrees even with most evolutionists.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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:

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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..

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Unless there is a global event like the Flood, it does.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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 >

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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…

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    This is another gross misinterpretation and/or stereotype

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Sorry, that has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of Williams' argument, and thus isn't topical.

       
    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32)

    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-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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 >

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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 >

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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).
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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 >  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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-------------------




    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 24 2011,12:45

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: forastero on Nov. 24 2011,12:48

    Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 24 2011,13:34

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,12:48)
    Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    So why don't you propose a better way to date things?

    Oh, you don't have one?
    Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 24 2011,15:02

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    So why don't you propose a better way to date things?

    Oh, you don't have one?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Match.com? E-Harmony?
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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:
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Quack on 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.
    Posted by: JonF on Nov. 24 2011,17:24

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,13:48)
    Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 24 2011,17:45

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,13:48)
    Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 25 2011,02:03



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    Posted by: blipey on Nov. 25 2011,03:08

    Um...yeah.  The growth rate in your population equation comes from, uh...where?
    Posted by: Stephen Elliott on Nov. 25 2011,09:39

    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,12:48)
    Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Henry J on 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
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 25 2011,21:29

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Cubist on Nov. 26 2011,02:05

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 26 2011,03:33

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Quack on Nov. 26 2011,04:35



    ---------------------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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 26 2011,08:40

    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.
    Posted by: JonF on Nov. 26 2011,10:23

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 27 2011,20:38

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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

    ---------------------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.

       
    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)
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?

    ---------------------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.

    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."
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.  
    ---------------------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.
    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    I see that you don't comprehend what "self-contained" means. I think I could have guessed that without confirmation.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------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.
    < 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.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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).
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    OMG YES I IT LIKE ELEVEN TIMES


    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 02 2011,11:42

    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:
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I have already explained all that but you are being willfully obtuse and dishonestly putting words in my posts
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 02 2011,11:45

    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
    Posted by: JohnW on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 02 2011,11:57

    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,11:42)
    I have already explained all that
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Then link to it.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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.
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 02 2011,12:19

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 02 2011,12:34

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: JohnW on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Or this:


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Which strata are pre-Flood and post-Flood strata?  How do you know?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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)
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Or this:


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Was the Tarim Basin canyon formed in The Flood?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Or this:


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Was the Green River formation formed in The Flood?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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-------------------


    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 02 2011,12:48



    ---------------------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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?
    Posted by: JohnW on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: Southstar on Dec. 02 2011,13:40

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 02 2011,14:32

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Or this:
     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Which strata are pre-Flood and post-Flood strata?  How do you know?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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)
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Or this:
     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Was the Tarim Basin canyon formed in The Flood?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Or this:
     

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Was the Green River formation formed in The Flood?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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-------------------


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




    ---------------------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.
    ---------------------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.[/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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    Posted by: forastero on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Yep and history of such psuedoscientific bullocks has repeated itself again and again
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 02 2011,14:47

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Evolution is a  creationism and just as illogical the other pantheistic creation myths
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 02 2011,14:48

    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-------------------


    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!
    Posted by: nmgirl on 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?
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 02 2011,14:58

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JohnW on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 02 2011,15:08

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    You haven't detailed anything.  Just asserted.
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 02 2011,15:19

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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).
    Posted by: nmgirl on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    all in 40 days?
    Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 02 2011,16:05

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    all in 40 days?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. :)
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 02 2011,16:31

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Stephen Elliott on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Yep and history of such psuedoscientific bullocks has repeated itself again and again
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Texas Teach on Dec. 02 2011,19:22

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Yep and history of such psuedoscientific bullocks has repeated itself again and again
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Not nearly a high enough dose.
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 02 2011,20:48

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: forastero on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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).
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: forastero on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    all in 40 days?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 02 2011,21:26

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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).
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    all in 40 days?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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!!!
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 02 2011,21:38

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 02 2011,21:39

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    all in 40 days?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    OK, got it.  Underwater forest growth in about a year.  Makes perfect sense to me.
    Posted by: forastero on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    all in 40 days?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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!!!
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: Dr.GH on Dec. 02 2011,22:20

    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.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 02 2011,22:27

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 02 2011,22:57

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 03 2011,05:37

    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-------------------




    ---------------------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.”
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    < Yawn. >

    We do know one thing for sure. It's much much older then 6000 years...
    Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 03 2011,06:30

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Because we read more than the headlines, Tardbucket. You should try it sometime.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 03 2011,06:50

    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>
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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'?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    all in 40 days?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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!!!
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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)
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    he's like a pet, maybe.
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 03 2011,08:41

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    he's like a pet, maybe.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    One should never invite a dog named 'puddles' into one's living room.
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 03 2011,09:38

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I kept six cats in an apartment for 7 years (including one round of kittens)... they still were very diverse.
    Posted by: blipey on 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?
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Dec. 03 2011,11:41

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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).
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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...
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Sounds like somebody is singing "We didn't start the fire", and is even less coherent.
    Posted by: JonF on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JonF on Dec. 03 2011,12:07

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 03 2011,12:48

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    all in 40 days?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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!!!
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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)
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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
    Posted by: forastero on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 03 2011,13:05

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 03 2011,14:20

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Can you explain the observed data in terms of a 6000 year old universe then?
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 03 2011,14:21

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    So therefore how long, according to you, until they revert back to the biblical cat "kind"?
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 03 2011,14:28

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: JonF on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I have already cited you proof that contamination is a major problem.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    {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.
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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)
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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
    ---------------------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?
    Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 03 2011,17:34

    Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,11:02)
    Before you criticize, you need to learn what you are criticizing.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Thou shalt not asketh too mucheth!!!!!!!!
    Posted by: JonF on 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.)


    Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 03 2011,20:23



    ---------------------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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Ah, but as long as the heat intensity stays below the melting point of the material in that rock, then... !!!!!!!!!!
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.)


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Wolfhound on Dec. 03 2011,21:10

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    he's like a pet, maybe.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Posted by: Dr.GH on Dec. 04 2011,00:11

    Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,17:52)
    Let's get down and dirty! Let's do some numbers!
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Fuck "numbers"! Do some DATA!

    < "Are Constants Constant?" >
    Posted by: JonF on Dec. 04 2011,08:57

    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.)


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    Posted by: JonF on Dec. 04 2011,09:17

    Oops.
    Posted by: JonF on Dec. 04 2011,09:30

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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-------------------



    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-------------------



    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-------------------



    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,03:45)

    Oh and contamination is also still a problem
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,20:37)

    Contamination is a big problem but I'll also pick on your best Cyclostratigraphy
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:58)

    Then on top of this, you have all the contamination and calibration problems of radiometric dating
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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-------------------



    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-------------------



    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-------------------



    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-------------------



    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-------------------



    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-------------------



    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-------------------



    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-------------------



    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-------------------



    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-------------------



    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-------------------



    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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!!
    Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 04 2011,10:07

    But of course contamination is a problem - why else would the EPA have been created? :p
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 04 2011,11:04

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I have already cited you proof that contamination is a major problem.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    {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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 04 2011,11:11

    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,12:04)
    See how y'all just sweep the good stuff under the rug to sensationalize your psuedososcience.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 04 2011,11:24

    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.)


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: blipey on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 04 2011,11:50

    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)
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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[/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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: forastero on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 04 2011,12:42

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 04 2011,13:14

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    For example?
    Posted by: blipey on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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[/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.
    ---------------------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'.  

    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."
    Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 04 2011,15:58



    ---------------------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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    It was big, and it went bang. What else does one need to know? :p
    Posted by: JonF on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    Posted by: JonF on Dec. 04 2011,18:41

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I have already cited you proof that contamination is a major problem.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    {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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.?&#65533;
    < 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,?&#65533; “To summarize, what we are showing is that the decay constant is not really a constant.?&#65533;
    < 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).?&#65533;
    < 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).?&#65533;
    < 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.?&#65533;

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JonF on Dec. 04 2011,18:44

    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.)


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JohnW on 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?
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 04 2011,19:56

    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.
    Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 04 2011,20:44

    Yeah, yeah, whatever. The real question is Who was carrying all the goddamned VD on the ark???
    Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 04 2011,21:35

    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???
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Maybe it was the ark-nemesis?
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 04 2011,22:23

    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???
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?"
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 05 2011,13:42

    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???
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Maybe it was the ark-nemesis?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




    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
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 05 2011,13:44



    why is this not this muppets avatar is what i wanna know
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 05 2011,15:10

    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
    ---------------------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.[/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."
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 05 2011,15:17

    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
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 05 2011,15:23

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Fyi, I used growth rates that evolutionists use for early man but you hastily dismiss it merely because you thought it came from me
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 05 2011,15:28

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    Posted by: forastero on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 05 2011,16:02

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: JonF on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JonF on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    All irrelevent to radiometric dating.
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 05 2011,16:49



    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
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 05 2011,17:05

    BTW: You haven't answered my questions about kinds.
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: blipey on Dec. 05 2011,22:35

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 06 2011,11:26

    Bonus:

    < http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011....ce.html >
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 06 2011,12:38

    Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 06 2011,11:26)
    Bonus:

    < http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011.......ce.html >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JonF on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never responded
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 06 2011,17:35

    Oops...
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 06 2011,17:43

    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...
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 06 2011,19:56

    Hey dude, here's another wild goose chase you can start to try and get out of the hole(s) you're in.

    Science confirmed.

    < https://indico.cern.ch/confere....=150980 >
    Posted by: Lou FCD on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Kristine on Dec. 07 2011,14:02

    Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2011,12:36)
    Try it, Tardbucket.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Sigworthy!
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 07 2011,14:18

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    and then fuck off, for good
    Posted by: blipey on Dec. 07 2011,18:14

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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....
    Posted by: forastero on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: forastero on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 08 2011,04:26

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 08 2011,04:46

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never responded
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 08 2011,05:13

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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...
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 08 2011,05:16

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Hmm ...I notice you wont post your links for us so I can show you were you misinterpreted them
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 08 2011,06:10

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 08 2011,06:15

    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,04:30)
    Of course, I believe in miracles.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 08 2011,07:34

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: JonF on Dec. 08 2011,08:24

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson

    < http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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).

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    Posted by: JonF on Dec. 08 2011,08:32

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never responded
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Whoops, I missed the link that Glen provided. I apologize.

    Still waiting for evidence that contamination is a problem.
    Posted by: JonF on Dec. 08 2011,08:37

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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...
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JonF on Dec. 08 2011,08:37

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JonF on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson

    < http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JonF on Dec. 08 2011,09:25

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 08 2011,09:49

    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"
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Actually that study was done by Dr. David A. Juckett from the Barros Research Institute at Michigan State University.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 08 2011,14:26

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Actually that study was done by Dr. David A. Juckett from the Barros Research Institute at Michigan State University.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    Posted by: forastero on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson

    < http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 08 2011,14:42

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    All irrelevent to radiometric dating.

    Still waiting for some evidence that contamination is a problem.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 08 2011,14:43

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on 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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    No one said that neutrinos effect  c14 production
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Forastero did (quoting a crank paper), have a talk with him and maybe you two can get your story straight.
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Dec. 08 2011,15:16

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson

    < http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Oh so now intercalibration doesnt mean calibration?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JonF on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson

    < http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: forastero on 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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    No one said that neutrinos effect  c14 production
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Forastero did (quoting a crank paper), have a talk with him and maybe you two can get your story straight.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 08 2011,15:37

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson

    < http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    yeah, when they wrote: "new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating".
    Posted by: JonF on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    All irrelevant to radiometric dating.

    Still waiting for some evidence that contamination is a problem.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Why, yes, we do.

       

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Different plants and animals ingest, absorb, and excrete 12C and 14C differently as do different body parts.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Dating multiple samples avoids that problem.
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 08 2011,15:44

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 08 2011,15:50

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    All irrelevant to radiometric dating.

    Still waiting for some evidence that contamination is a problem.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Why, yes, we do.

       

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Different plants and animals ingest, absorb, and excrete 12C and 14C differently as do different body parts.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Dating multiple samples avoids that problem.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: JonF on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson

    < http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    yeah, when they wrote: "new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating".
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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...
    Posted by: JonF on Dec. 08 2011,16:26

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    What do you mean its not used much any more? The paper says its always used with 40Ar/39Ar,
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JonF on Dec. 08 2011,16:29

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on 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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    No one said that neutrinos effect  c14 production
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Forastero did (quoting a crank paper), have a talk with him and maybe you two can get your story straight.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Posted by: k.e.. on Dec. 08 2011,21:57

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    All irrelevant to radiometric dating.

    Still waiting for some evidence that contamination is a problem.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Why, yes, we do.

         

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Different plants and animals ingest, absorb, and excrete 12C and 14C differently as do different body parts.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Dating multiple samples avoids that problem.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    The imbicile doesn't understand irony.

    Hey 4-ass educate yourself look up gormless.

    ...dickhead...
    Posted by: blipey on 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?
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on 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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    No one said that neutrinos effect  c14 production
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Forastero did (quoting a crank paper), have a talk with him and maybe you two can get your story straight.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------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)."

    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.
    Posted by: k.e.. on Dec. 09 2011,00:14

    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    No one said that neutrinos effect  c14 production
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Forastero did (quoting a crank paper), have a talk with him and maybe you two can get your story straight.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------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)."

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ...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]
    Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 09 2011,01:40

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    DO IT!
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 09 2011,04:00

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson

    < http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    yeah, when they wrote: "new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating".
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 09 2011,05:05

    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,04:00)
    A rigorous theoretical analysis based on perturbation theory
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.....
    Posted by: forastero on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: forastero on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson

    < http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    yeah, when they wrote: "new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating".
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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...
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 09 2011,06:06

    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58)
    The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 09 2011,07:14

    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58)
    The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Oh really? I missed those. Can you provide a link, please? This I gotta see.
    Posted by: Lou FCD on 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?
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: jeannot on 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.
    Posted by: JonF on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson

    < http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    yeah, when they wrote: "new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating".
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    That is also incorrect.
    < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >

    < http://geology.gsapubs.org/content....bstract >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??
    Posted by: JonF on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson

    < http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    yeah, when they wrote: "new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating".
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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...
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Oh really? I missed those. Can you provide a link, please? This I gotta see.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on 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
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on 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
    Posted by: blipey on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    {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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Did you also provide a derivation of the growth rate in that population equation of yours?  If so, could you point it out? Thanks.
    Posted by: JohnW on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on 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
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on 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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    No one said that neutrinos effect  c14 production
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Forastero did (quoting a crank paper), have a talk with him and maybe you two can get your story straight.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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)."

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Oh really? I missed those. Can you provide a link, please? This I gotta see.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on 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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??re right
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    "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
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 09 2011,14:32



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    No results found for "aquatic refuges" "global flood".
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Posted by: Cubist on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------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...
    Posted by: fnxtr on 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...
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.)
    Posted by: Henry J on 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?
    Posted by: Cubist on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Don't call me Shirley.
    Posted by: forastero on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: forastero on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Hmm why do you insist that initial isotope variation isnt also often due to contamination?
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    If only there was some way to work how how often such things happen and perhaps even to find a way around it?
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    awwww it had a feel do you like that feel fourass


    Posted by: forastero on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    All irrelevant to radiometric dating.

    Still waiting for some evidence that contamination is a problem.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Why, yes, we do.

         

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
    Different plants and animals ingest, absorb, and excrete 12C and 14C differently as do different body parts.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Dating multiple samples avoids that problem.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.  
    ---------------------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.

    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JonF on 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.  
    ---------------------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.

    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JonF on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on 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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??re right
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JonF on 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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??re right
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JonF on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Hmm why do you insist that initial isotope variation isnt also often due to contamination?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 10 2011,12:40

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    How do you explain it, given the earth is <6000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all?
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 10 2011,12:57

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Hmm why do you insist that initial isotope variation isnt also often due to contamination?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 10 2011,13:02

    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??re right
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 10 2011,13:05

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    How do you explain it, given the earth is <6000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of  evolutionism
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 10 2011,13:13

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 10 2011,13:15

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    How do you explain it, given the earth is <6000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of  evolutionism
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    OK, muppet.  Fine.

    How do you explain it, given the earth is <10000 years old according to you?  Why is it happening at all?
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 10 2011,13:17

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    How do you explain it, given the earth is <6000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of  evolutionism
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: blipey on Dec. 10 2011,13:25

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: blipey on Dec. 10 2011,13:29

    Experiment:

    Forastero,

    What is 4 + 9 equal to?
    Posted by: JonF on Dec. 10 2011,13:48

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Hmm why do you insist that initial isotope variation isnt also often due to contamination?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 10 2011,13:54

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 10 2011,13:58

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Damn, dude.

    It completely sucks to be you, doesn't it? Does it hurt to be that stupid?
    Posted by: JonF on Dec. 10 2011,14:36

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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}
    Posted by: JonF on Dec. 10 2011,14:43

    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??re right
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    More sweeping under the rug on you part because all of those keywords are all common knowledge in quantum physics...
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.

    Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel.
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Dec. 10 2011,16:59

    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??re right
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Grade:0

    Bonus question: In quantum tunneling is the energy of the partcile the same before and after tunneling?
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.[/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
    ---------------------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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 11 2011,07:16

    < 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Posted by: k.e.. on Dec. 11 2011,07:42

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    How do you explain it, given the earth is <6000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of  evolutionism
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: k.e.. on Dec. 11 2011,07:50

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 11 2011,09:07

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    How do you explain it, given the earth is <6000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of  evolutionism
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




    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?
    Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 11 2011,12:12

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.)


    Posted by: fnxtr on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.

    Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Erm..  only if the rate of new tree growth balances the rate of carbon released by burning them. Is that happening right now?
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 11 2011,15:57

    this sombitch is even dumber than you can know
    Posted by: khan on Dec. 11 2011,15:58

    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 11 2011,16:57)
    this sombitch is even dumber than you can know
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Ignorant beyond all comprehension.
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 11 2011,21:09

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson

    < http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    yeah, when they wrote: "new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating".
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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...
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 11 2011,21:12

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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"?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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. .
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson

    < http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    yeah, when they wrote: "new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating".
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    That is also incorrect.
    < http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >

    < http://geology.gsapubs.org/content....bstract >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




    ---------------------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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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!
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 11 2011,21:27

    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    No one said that neutrinos effect  c14 production
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Forastero did (quoting a crank paper), have a talk with him and maybe you two can get your story straight.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------




    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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)."

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: forastero on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Oh really? I missed those. Can you provide a link, please? This I gotta see.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    If you Google refugia and ocean you will find several. Off hand, the geothermal vent refugia comes to mind
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 11 2011,21:34

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: forastero on 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.  
    ---------------------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.

    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Actually,  tracy Hamilton and I were debating the constancy of 14c decay rates when you butted in with a long incorrect diatribe.
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Dec. 11 2011,22:53

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.

    Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Erm..  only if the rate of new tree growth balances the rate of carbon released by burning them. Is that happening right now?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    It depends on the country.  The widespread deforestation in the tropics is a problem, although the burning is not for energy but land clearing.
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Dec. 11 2011,23:00

    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.  
    ---------------------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.

    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.

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Actually,  tracy Hamilton and I were debating the constancy of 14c decay rates when you butted in with a long incorrect diatribe.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.  
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Dec. 11 2011,23:05

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Oh really? I missed those. Can you provide a link, please? This I gotta see.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    If you Google refugia and ocean you will find several. Off hand, the geothermal vent refugia comes to mind
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Let me amend my statement: "Forastero could not find a staff with two hands and a google search for refugia and ocean."
    Posted by: blipey on Dec. 12 2011,00:53

    Quote (khan @ Dec. 11 2011,15:58)
    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 11 2011,16:57)
    this sombitch is even dumber than you can know
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Ignorant beyond all comprehension.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    forastero,

    what is 9 + 4 equal to?
    Posted by: blipey on Dec. 12 2011,00:55

    Any movement on that derivation of growth rate problem, or is it intractable?
    Posted by: forastero on 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.
    ---------------------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[/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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    Posted by: forastero on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.

    Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon.

    Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 12 2011,03:30

    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 11 2011,22:09)
    ...when y'all have such a dangerous creationist on your hands.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 12 2011,05:10

    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,01:30)
    Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Where is the other 0.1% from?
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 12 2011,06:21

    fourass just how stupid are you?
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 12 2011,07:34

    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.
    ---------------------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
    ---------------------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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: k.e.. on Dec. 12 2011,07:37

    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.
    ---------------------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
    ---------------------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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 12 2011,07:48

    better to be a cunt for jesus than just a cunt!
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.

    Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon.

    Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 12 2011,08:40

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: k.e.. on Dec. 12 2011,08:53

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 12 2011,09:52

    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"
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 12 2011,09:53

    i'm sorry that is not sexism how silly

    ahem

    your unexamined morphological privilege is showing

    porcupines etc
    Posted by: Lou FCD on 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.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 12 2011,10:33

    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 12 2011,04:21)
    fourass just how stupid are you?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Dec. 12 2011,10:40

    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.  
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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").
    Posted by: blipey on Dec. 12 2011,12:24

    Hi forastero,

    Have you found a stave with the derivation of growth rate from your population equation on it?

    Also,

    what is 9 + 4 equal to?
    Posted by: Henry J on Dec. 12 2011,14:57

    12.999999999999999999...
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 12 2011,15:10

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.

    Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon.

    Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JohnW on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.

    Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon.

    Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    "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
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 12 2011,15:31

    perhaps that's what did in Salvelinus agassizii motherfucking atmosphere sequestration something something refuge amen
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Dec. 12 2011,15:43

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.

    Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon.

    Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 12 2011,15:51


    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 12 2011,15:52

    play us out, keyboard cat
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    "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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    The "are sequestering" is indeed a stupid, but the char refers to biochars, a quite feasible approach to sequestering carbon.
    Posted by: forastero on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    "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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 12 2011,16:07

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    "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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    The "are sequestering" is indeed a stupid, but the char refers to biochars, a quite feasible approach to sequestering carbon.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Thanks, Tracy.  I learned something.  As usual, not from the muppet.
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 12 2011,16:19

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    "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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    The "are sequestering" is indeed a stupid, but the char refers to biochars, a quite feasible approach to sequestering carbon.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    i wouldn't give this shitstain that much credit
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 12 2011,16:21

    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?
    Posted by: JohnW on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    "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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    ---------------------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?
    Posted by: paragwinn on Dec. 12 2011,17:03

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.

    Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon.

    Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    What else might have survived in those "aquatic refugia"?

    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 12 2011,17:16

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    "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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    The "are sequestering" is indeed a stupid, but the char refers to biochars, a quite feasible approach to sequestering carbon.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    Posted by: JohnW on 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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    They do?  I thought they were only 4000 years old.
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 12 2011,17:26

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    "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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 >
    ---------------------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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 12 2011,17:29

    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 >
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    They do?  I thought they were only 4000 years old.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    In this increasingly politically correct world, one must read between the lines
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 12 2011,17:30

    Oh and no one believes that the world is 4000 years old
    Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 12 2011,17:41

    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:30)
    Oh and no one believes that the world is 4000 years old
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I thought sedimentary rocks were all formed in Teh Flud?
    Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 12 2011,18:04

    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,17:30)
    Oh and no one believes that the world is 4000 years old
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 12 2011,18:06

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 12 2011,18:11

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: JonF on Dec. 12 2011,18:28

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Well you certainly are stupid, and incapable of figuring out the simplest parts of reality, Holy Spirit or not.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 12 2011,19:04

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Again, I said below 20,000 and probably less than 10,000

    why do y'all keep asking that?
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Again, I said below 20,000 and probably less than 10,000

    why do y'all keep asking that?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: forastero on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    The point had to do with the deceptive tone of the whole article, which btw was easily proved wrong.
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 12 2011,19:19

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Again, I said below 20,000 and probably less than 10,000

    why do y'all keep asking that?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 12 2011,19:33

    Hey ogre, you still working on those questions or what?
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 12 2011,20:04

    Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:33)
    Hey ogre, you still working on those questions or what?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: k.e.. on Dec. 12 2011,20:24

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Again, I said below 20,000 and probably less than 10,000

    why do y'all keep asking that?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    "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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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]
    Posted by: forastero on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 12 2011,20:55

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    this pustule


    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 12 2011,20:58

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    what, are you Dr Who or some shit?
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 12 2011,21:07

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    "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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 12 2011,21:09

    We understand, Forastero. You can't answer my questions. Why not just admit it?
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 12 2011,21:16

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 12 2011,21:22

    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.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 12 2011,21:23

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Plagiarized in part from < here >.
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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...
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on 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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 12 2011,21:56

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Boom goes the dynamite
    Posted by: forastero on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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...
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: forastero on Dec. 12 2011,22:02

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Sorry but I have given several detailed descriptions that likely dismiss your question and you havnt responded to even one of them
    Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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...
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: forastero on 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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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...
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Dec. 12 2011,22:29

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 12 2011,22:49

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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...
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------



    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Ok, so you admit that fossil fuels are not 'right now' sequestering CO2.  yes or no

    Why not try actually answering questions for once?
    Posted by: blipey on Dec. 12 2011,23:23

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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....
    Posted by: blipey on Dec. 12 2011,23:26

    forastero,

    while you're not answering the really difficult questions, maybe you can take a break and answer a couple of really easy ones:

    1.  how was the growth rate in your population equation derived?

    2.  what is 9 + 4 equal to?
    Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 12 2011,23:47

    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
    Posted by: Cubist on Dec. 13 2011,01:18

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 13 2011,05:48

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    The point had to do with the deceptive tone of the whole article, which btw was easily proved wrong.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Really? Not by you, at any rate.
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 13 2011,06:29

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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?
    Posted by: noncarborundum on Dec. 13 2011,07:38

    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    The point had to do with the deceptive tone of the whole article, which btw was easily proved wrong.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 13 2011,13:27

    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?
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Because it's funny, muppet.

    Especially when you say that 10000 years is sensible, but 6000 years is crazy talk.
    Posted by: JonF on 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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    You've made lots of claims but haven't substantiated any.
    Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 13 2011,18:29

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    You've made lots of claims but haven't substantiated any.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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.
    Posted by: Tracy P. Hamilton on Dec. 13 2011,21:19

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    You've made lots of claims but haven't substantiated any.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Half-vast claims at that.
    Posted by: k.e.. on Dec. 13 2011,22:14

    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
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    You've made lots of claims but haven't substantiated any.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Half-vast claims at that.
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    Right so 0.1 assed claims binary then?

    he's on a hiding to nothing.
    Posted by: Southstar on Dec. 14 2011,04:13

    Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 13 2011,22:14)

    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    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 ;)
    Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 30 2011,23:15

    [sound FX]Crickets chirping[/sound FX]
    Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 31 2011,14:42

    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 31 2011,00:15)
    [sound FX]Crickets chirping[/sound FX]
    ---------------------QUOTE-------------------


    I tole the cute Little Bunny not to jump into the rain barrel.
    end


    Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
    Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.