|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
The more I look into it, the entire theory of evolution rests on currently measured rates of decay of heavy isotopes. Without that theoretical basis for measuring timeframes, geology, archaeology and all else fits in perfectly with the so-called biblical myths.
Nope. Educated people realized long before radioactivity was discovered that the features of the Earth were formed over many millions of years, even billions. I recommend The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood. See also Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth.pdf. All that radiometric dating has given us is the ability to make much more accurate measurements of age. Which, of course, is plenty.
Its theoretically possible that even the weather can affect the rate of decay of heavy elements, and so the whole theory of evolution is currently resting on very shaky foundations.
Nope. Or, let's see the theory of how weather affects the decay rate. The ToE does not depend on nuclear decay rates once we know that the Earth is many millions of years old (see above). The classic study of decay rates is Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates. I can supply a PDF if you give me an email address. How to Change Nuclear Decay Rates is good. Briefly, the only way to significantly change decay rates involves things like heating the Earth to be hotter than the Sun's core.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Do you feel its impossible for animals to survive if you release them off a boat into the wilds?
Irrelevant. Substitute "wasteland barren of any plants or animals" for "wilds". With that substitution, yes. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
You might want to look at Leviticus 11. In the fine tradition of Making Shit Up, he thinks that clean and unclean were different before the Fludde. I.e., clean and unclean is just at a whim and doesn't have any basis other than a trickster God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
You have only the debatable theory of radiometric dating to support your long periods of time.
There is no debate on the validity of radiometric dating. A few kooks have tried unsuccessfully to cast doubt on it. But, as I pointed out before and you ignored, educated people knew that the Earth was much, much older than a few thousand years long before the discovery of radioactivity. Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
The ancient Greeks were educated and were always debating with eachother.
So?
Having a theory does not prove the theory.
Right. But mountains of supporting evidence do (insofar as proof is possible in science).
I am active in a carbon dating thread and will soon start a thread on radiometric dating as well. Its not set in stone, its just a theory based on current rates of decay.
I'l be there. I seriously suggest you do some research on the basics of radiometric dating: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective is sound. And the evidence for the constancy of decay rates: The Constancy of Constants and The Constancy of Constants, Part 2, both by a renowned physicist, are a good place to start. Be aware that if you bring up the "three assumptions underlying radiometric dating" you will immediately brand yourself as an ignoramus. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
I know that, but radiometric dating is based on a modern rate of decay that is assumed to be constant. False. The constancy of decay rates is not an assumption. It's a conclusion, again based on mountains of evidence. See the links in Message 205.
The assumption does not have a strong basis, due to the fact that there are a few known and also unknown ways in which it can be affected. So its application to previous environments is a shaky foundation on which the entire theory of evolution rests. There is no evidence of unknown ways of affecting decay rates, that's why they would be unknown if indeed they do exist. Scientists deal with the evidence we have, not the evidence that doesn't exist except in your mind. Radioactive decay is well understood. Scientist have attempted to affect decay rates in many different ways. No decay rate used in geochronology has been affected by any significant amount in any experiment other than 87Rb, and the decay rate was only affected significantly when the temperature was high enough to vaporize the Earth many times over. Again, the consilience that you ignore is key. There are three major and very different modes of decay, and there are many variations on each mode. If you want to invoke accelerated nuclear decay, you need to explain by what mechanism it was accelerated and how all the very different modes were accelerated by exactly the amount needed to have different dating methods show the observed consilience. And where did the heat and radiation go to (your comments are welcome and on-topic in Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay). Plus, for the third time, the Earth was well-known to be much, much older than a few thousand years long before radioactivity was discovered, and the ToE does not rest upon the validity of radiometric dating. I won't bother to post the link again, you'll just ignore it again. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
The water came from the melting oof Southern Hemisphere glaciation and melting of the ice caps. And how much water was that? Today the total icecaps and glaciation are about 1.8% of the water in the oceans (How much water is there on, in, and above the Earth?). In the last ice age, there was enough water locked up in glaciers to drop sea level about 400 feet (Ice, Snow, and Glaciers: The Water Cycle). Still obviously not enough to cover mountains. (If you wish to invoke catastrophic mountain building, please include your estimate of the heat released by the process).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Without radiometric dating you have nothing Many times I have pointed out that scientists knew that the Earth is much, much more than a few thousand years old long before we discovered radioactivity. I can only conclude that you are deliberately ignoring this fact and lying through your teeth.
Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth.pdf. Read it and respond. No excuses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
{duplicate}
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
as usual I do not take the standard creationist line.
"Mainstream science assumes constant decay rates" is part of the standard creationist line, and is found nowhere else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
You claimed "You have only the debatable theory of radiometric dating to support your long periods of time.". You know that's not true. If you don't want me making false accusations, then you should perhaps more precise in what you write, rather than making loose and inaccurate claims. If I am not precise enough in my explanations, you should rather point out that I am wrong, than jump to the conclusion that I'm a liar. Your approach is not conducive to understanding another's point of view. Ignoring all the evidence that another person posts is not conducive to understanding another's point of view, so you are hardly one to talk. I jumped to no conclusion. I pointed out exactly why you were wrong at least four times, and was ignored. I concluded that you are lying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
There is a definite seasonal pattern to radiometric decay: Page not found | Observations on Quantum Computing & Physics That result has been questioned, and the faint effect they saw has not been conclusively tied to variation in decay rates (see Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth—Sun distance).
They have not yet discovered the cause/effect of this pattern and yet brush off the changes as negligible. And they are absolutely correct.
I agree that the currently recorded changes are negligible, but unless we can discover the actual cause we do not know if the changes would be significant under past weather conditions which were vastly different through the ages. I will deal with possible cause and effect in the dating forum when I have time, and how rates could be vastly affected.
Boy boh boy, I'm looking forward to that tap-dancing! There's very solid evidence that anything you could call "weather" does not affect decay rates.
Known causes of changed decay rates in heavy elements are neutron bombardment and heat.
Read "impossible" Any heat sufficient to affect decay rates resets the clock.
Heat is an unlikely cause of inaccurate dating but neutrons do occur in nature. I will also deal with this in the dating forum in future.
Looking forward to it. Don't forget that you'd need a lot of neutrons bombarding. I hope you bring up Melvin Cook's claims from the early 50's, I'm somewhat of an expert on the errors in that one. And remember CONSILIENCE. If you can't explain the observed consilience, you have nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
The consilience is due to most methods measuring specifically the decay of heavy isotopes. The remaining methods are calibrated against those methods.
Then stop making claims about radiometric decay. Please see my previous post, this isn't the forum to discuss radiometric decay. It's true that the majority of dating studies are done with U and Th, but close behind is Ar-Ar. Potassium (and Rubidium) and are not heavy isotopes, for example. The remaining methods are not calibrated against the U and Th methods. (Well, occasionally they are, but it's rare and frowned on). See Call for an improved set of decay constants for geochronological use; I can send you a PDF if you PM me an email address).
Plus, for the third time, the Earth was well-known to be much, much older than a few thousand years long before radioactivity was discovered, and the ToE does not rest upon the validity of radiometric dating. I won't bother to post the link again, you'll just ignore it again.
These were mainly evolutionists who required long time frames for their evolution to work. So their "knowledge" of long timeframes was based on assumptions that remain unproven. Essentially none of them were "evolutionists", most of the work was done before Darwin published and some was done before he was born. And there's no reason to suspect Kelvin of being an "evolutionist", unless you can come up with some evidence. He was just investigating the age of the Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
The seasonal pattern is not related to sun-distance, they are correct. So they still have to determine what actually caused the seasonal variations in radioactive decay, now that they have eliminated sun-distance. Makes sense?
Close, but no quite. They have to determine what caused the seasonal patterns; changes in decay rates, instrumentation problems, ... all sorts of possibilities. The patterns have not been established to be changes in decay rates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
quote:The alleged Biblical flood was not "flooding on every coastline on the planet", it was complete flooding of all the land on the planet.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024