quote:
Do you have evidence it does not?
JM: Yes, indeed there is evidence that decay rates are constant. We have now observed, quite literally, trillions upon trillions of decay events and found no variation in rates. There have been a number of studies indicating that:
The radioactive decay rates of nucleotides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments which attempt to change decay rates [Emery, 1972]. Extreme pressure can cause electron capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2%), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.
Supernovae produce a large, and calculable, quantity of radioactive isotopes [Nomoto et al, 1997; Theilemann et al, 1998]. The decay of these isotopes produces a fading rate and characteristic gamma ray frequencies which are predictable if decay rates are constant. Both of these have been observed for SN1987A, which is 169,000 light years away [Knudlseder, 1998]. Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Furthermore, the fading rate and gamma rays have been observed for supernova SN1991T, which is 60 million light years away [Prantzos, 1999]. The fading rate is also consistent with observations of supernovae billions of light years away [Perlmutter et al, 1997].
The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost 2 billion years. [Shlyakhter, 1976; Fujii et al, 2000].
quote:
As far as coming up with an evidenceless fantasy as to whether it might be older or younger, it don't much matter, as both would be nothingness without knowing!
JM: Ok, I will accept your position that science can know nothing about the earth. It seems a rather defeatist position to take since it also must be true that we can know nothing about the past and then we are all wasting our time on here anyway (even you).
quote:
To determine something fairly accurate, it seems to me, you would need to know the conditions that existed pre flood, as well as in flood, not just the part of the equation called 'post flood' otherwise our answer will be skewed.
JM: Yes, you would also need to provide evidence that the flood occurred. Sadly, as you note above, we can never solve that problem since it is unknowable.
quote:
Such as the amount of water covering the earth, the amount of carbon, salt, etc in the air, and water.
JM: How, according to you, do these things affect magnetic reversals?
quote:
Such as a 'beginning' in other words if certain processes began, when exactly did they start, and what affected them along the way?
JM: How do these questions apply to the existence, or non-existence of magnetic reversals? After all, that's what my question was about.
quote:
To simply measure how something erodes, or decays etc now, without a good understanding is not acceptable.
JM: What does this have to do with reversals? Are you changing the subject?
quote:
I could take someone to Canada's Trans Canada Hwy (for example)which goes from Atlantic to Pacific, take them to Nova Scotia near where it begins somewhere, at a place where the road happens to be heading North for several miles, and have them speculate whicere it will come out. They could assume that they have been going north for miles, observably, therefore they would be maybe in Moscow in a few days! Unless they have other factors in the equation, their answer is bound to be wrong!
JM: I don't see the relevance of this to the existence/non-existence of magnetic reversals.
quote:
Here's something from Walt "..The public was told that parralleling the Mid Oceanic Ridge are bands of ocean floor with reversed magnetic orientation...This suggested periodic reversals of the earth's magnetic poles,
JM: The public was accurately informed. As I said, even Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research no longer play the 'There are no magnetic reversals' argument.
quote:
...This explanation is wrong. There are no magnetic reversals on the ocean floor, and no compass would reverse direction if brought near...Someone merely drew a line through these fluctuations and labeled everything below this average intensity as a "reversal".. "
JM: That's not the full picture though is it? On what page does Walt discuss the Ocean Drilling Program and the many holes that have penetrated the ocean floor and found exactly what Walt says isn't there? For example, I suggest you read the textbooks by Opdyke and Channell (Magnetic Stratigraphy, Academic Press, 1996) and J.A. Jacobs book "Reversals of the Earth's Magnetic Field, Cambridge University Press, 1994). Why did Walt not mention the following: (from Jacobs book)
"Reversals of the geomagnetic field were originally found in lava flows (on land). Later, Opdyke et al. (1966) found a polarity record in
deep sea sediments going back 3.6 million years in which the pattern of reversals was identical to the igneous rocks on land"
and from the Opdyke and Channell book:
"These papers demonstrated that (1) the magnetic anomaly pattern was symmetric on both sides of a spreading ridge and (2) the anomaly pattern emanating from the ridges reproduces
in detail the reversal sequence obtained from lava flows on land"
Thus the reversals seen on the ocean floor are confirmed by drilling into the ocean floor itself and also correlation to rocks on land. As I said, Walt and Hovind are about the only two creationists who deny reversals.
quote:
I may not know what it is, but I darn sure know what it ain't!
JM: Perhaps, but you've not convinced anyone on here that you know what science is or isn't.
Cheers
Joe Meert
References:
Emery, G.T., 1972. Perturbation of nuclear decay rates. Annual Review Nuclear Science 22: 165-202.
Fujii, Yasunori et al., 2000. The nuclear interaction at Oklo 2 billion years ago. Nucl. Phys. B 573: 377-401.
Greenlees, Paul, 2000. Theory of Alpha Decay.
http://www.phys.jyu.fi/...publications/ptgthesis/node26.htmlKnudlseder, J., 1999. Constraints on stellar yields and Sne from gamma-ray line observations,
System Unavailable
Krane, Kenneth S., 1987. Introductory Nuclear Physics. John Wiley & Sons.
™ Version 4.2