|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Walt Brown's super-tectonics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 188 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Well there have been accounts of people feeding it to their dogs when coming upon some. I'm not going to argue it. But how would I know for sure, or you? Personally, I'd not be one to try such a thing. I haven't heard of people trying to chow down on it, but the fact remains they were found in a remarkable state of preservation. Why try to deny it? I haven't tried to deny that.
..most were somewhat mutilated by predators prior to freezing
By the way, how exactly, in these cases do we know it was prior to freezing? It's trivial to tell the difference between bites in unfrozen flesh and bites in frozen flesh. For more information, see Frozen Mammoths and the references contained therein, and Woolly Mammoths: Evidence of Catastrophe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Do you have evidence that decay rates change Do you have evidence it does not? 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! 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.
.. There was a lot happening that must have affected these things. Such as the amount of water covering the earth, the amount of carbon, salt, etc in the air, and water. Such as a 'beginning' in other words if certain processes began, when exactly did they start, and what affected them along the way? To simply measure how something erodes, or decays etc now, without a good understanding is not acceptable. 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: Such as?..MOst geologists consider rocks at the ridge to be very young. What is the something else? What evidence do you have for this something else? 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, ...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".. "
..It's one thing to criticize science and quite another to think that by criticizing science your default view is correct I may not know what it is, but I darn sure know what it ain't!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
..It's trivial to tell the difference between bites in unfrozen flesh and bites in frozen flesh Trivial it may be. Seems to me up where things freeze almost right away, anyone seeing a bite older than a minute or so would see it as frozen. I don't need to get into it if you don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Do you have evidence it does not? Observation of Supernova 1987A demonstrates that decay rates haven't changed in 167,000 years. Which is what we expect, because the decay rates are apparently linked to the speed of light, which is constant, as you may know. You can read about it here:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm Radiometric dating doesn't rest on assumption, but rather on experiment and observation, like the rest of science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Seems to me up where things freeze almost right away, anyone seeing a bite older than a minute or so would see it as frozen. Um, you know, unless we're talking about something that bleeds... [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-03-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
..You know, you actually have to show that I'm lying, not just say that I am I was talking about the fact that these daters got 'caught' quite often. using this to call into question their unerring accuracy. It wasn't a personal thing.
What does the age of Niagra Falls have to do with the Age of the Earth Well, if it actually follwed it's historically measured rate of erosion, apparently, before it was engineered and diverted for power last century-it is estimated that it would have taken around 9000 some odd years to get to where it now is. If conditions of the flood did prevail, this would likley be down to the actual flood timeline. Thats how it matters. One guy answered 12000 yrs, another 550 million, and I think the 'professor' said about 4.5 Billion! I can always tell who thinks they are the most expert by who comes up with the oldest dates!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
..Um, you know, unless we're talking about something that bleeds OK so what are you saying? You mean the mammoth finds that had a bite out of them were therefore bit at a certain time? What is your point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1009 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Simple, it's quite apparent you are unable to understand the arguments presented to you. I think maybe you should slow down a bit and actually read the replies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
And perhaps you could get to the two new threads for you. The flood ordering one needs more work on your part.
Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
There are no magnetic reversals on the ocean floor, and no compass would reverse direction if brought near...
Another excellent example of Dr Brown's 1) utter lack of understanding what he's writing abot or 2) utter contempt for the facts, and for his intended reading audience. Any dodo that has the slightest acquaintance with remanant magnetism in basalts, ancient clay hearths, etc., and thinks that the frozen-in field is enough to turn a compass needle........He's either got a reading comprehension problem or he's lying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
..Observation of Supernova 1987A demonstrates that decay rates haven't changed in 167,000 years ha, I thought we'd be going to space on this. I guess we know the speed of light has never changed, and never will? That aside, I will go along with your space theories mostly, as far as distance goes, as long as you are in the solar system. Projecting Creatorless assumptions beyond that is a wild ride.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
..He's either got a reading comprehension problem or he's lying But you, unlike him, do comprehend? And are no liar? Perhaps the things you think you comprehend have been taught to you in error?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
I guess we know the speed of light has never changed, and never will? Well, in the time since the supernova it hasn't. And what is your real problem with this? Actually, I know what your problem is: You don't understand the issue at all and you haven't any real critism of it. (still waiting on the flood ordering) Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 188 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Trivial it may be. Seems to me up where things freeze almost right away, anyone seeing a bite older than a minute or so would see it as frozen Read some of the links I posted. You don't know much about the climate in which the mammoths lived, or the contnents of their stomachs when they were found. Added in edit .. And how freakin' fast do you think a creature the size of a mammoth freezes? [This message has been edited by JonF, 02-03-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5700 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: 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: 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: 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: JM: How, according to you, do these things affect magnetic reversals?
quote: 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: JM: What does this have to do with reversals? Are you changing the subject?
quote: JM: I don't see the relevance of this to the existence/non-existence of magnetic reversals.
quote: 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: 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: 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.html Knudlseder, 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024