Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   PRATT Party and Free for All
JonF
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 62 of 126 (546649)
02-12-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
02-10-2010 10:07 AM


Re: Rates according to RATE
Though I concur with a lot of ICR conclusions, the following exerpt from the above site hits on one of their conclusions which does not fit the literal Genesis one model:
quote:
Since we can measure the present half life we can calculate the age of a sample of an isotope if we also know how much of each isotope was there at the beginning of the process, and that nothing changed during the process that we did not know about. Since we cannot observe the beginning amounts that existed in the distant past, we have to make some assumptions in order to make dating calculations.
Well, they are flat-out wrong, and no-one with a slight acquaintance with radiometric dating would make such a false statement.
The vast majority of radiometric dates use methods for which the initial amount of daughter isotope is known from basic physics (e.g. no significant lead ever appears in a zircon at solidification, acknowledged by the RATE group1) or the method actually produces the amount of daughter product at solidification (isochron or Ar-Ar methods). Whether or not the system has been disturbed is also indicated by the vast majority of methods in use today, and some methods (U-Pb concordia-discordia, Ar-Ar) often produce a valid datge even if the system has been disturbed.
Sorry, Buz, your reference is crap. If you are actually interested in the reality of radiometric dating, Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.
--------------------
1HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR 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 [14, 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.
{emphasis in original}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 02-10-2010 10:07 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 197 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 63 of 126 (546650)
02-12-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Buzsaw
02-12-2010 10:47 AM


Re: Dating dirt
1) Don't atomic decay rates effect/change matter?
If decay rates were ever significantly different there would be traces. We have looked diligently for such traces. They aren't there.
2) Wouldn't atomic decay rates be unpredictable if the pre-flood amount of carbon and other elements in the atmosphere were not uniform to after the flood?
No.
3) Wouldn't matter/soil be affected after the flood relative to a change in the rate of atom decay?
I can't extract any meaning from that word salad.
4) Isn't the conventional model uniformitarian whereas the Buz/Biblical hypothesis is not?
I would say that the conventional model is based on conclusions from a mountain of evidence, whereas the Buz/Biblical hypothesis is based on wishful thinking and ignoring all the evidence. See:
The Constancy of Constants
The Constancy of Constants, Part 2

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 10:47 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024