Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 124 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2017 4:32 AM
366 online now:
Riggamortis (1 member, 365 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,421 Year: 19,027/21,208 Month: 1,786/3,111 Week: 7/574 Day: 7/38 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Assessing the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) Project
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 16 of 36 (564192)
06-08-2010 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by JonF
06-06-2010 8:32 PM


I have to admit I'm in over my head here. I didn't fully follow the second half of Dr. Loecholt's paper - and while I likely could muddle through it given enough time I've got too many other things going at the moment.

I will review the links you posted, as well as any other material I can find on this issue and get back with you at some point in the future when I have a better grasp of the science involved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by JonF, posted 06-06-2010 8:32 PM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 06-08-2010 9:48 PM BobTHJ has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5900
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 17 of 36 (564193)
06-08-2010 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by BobTHJ
06-08-2010 9:44 PM


RATE Project overview
Other than the helium diffusion in zircons question, what is your estimate of the support which the RATE Project affords a young earth position?

And did the comments we have posted or linked make any change in your position?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by BobTHJ, posted 06-08-2010 9:44 PM BobTHJ has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by BobTHJ, posted 06-13-2010 2:16 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6799
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 18 of 36 (564292)
06-09-2010 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by BobTHJ
06-06-2010 7:24 PM


Is the RATE project's conclusion of accelerated decay a reasonable one?

Ignoring the helium diffusion studies for the moment, no it is not reasonable. Not even close.

The first thing you need to deal with is the added heat. Decay produces energy. If you increase the decay rates by several thousand fold you will quite literally melt the Earth and everything on it. You can check out the math here. Spontaneous combustion comes to mind. The very fact that we are here talking about accelerated decay means that it didn't happen.

Not only that, but if extrapolating into the past is a bad thing then so is extrapolating into the future. This means that atomic bombs could spontaneously explode. The same for nuclear reactors. If creationists really believed in this accelerated decay crap then they would be feverishly pursuing the destruction of all nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors. Why don't we see that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by BobTHJ, posted 06-06-2010 7:24 PM BobTHJ has not yet responded

  
BobTHJ
Member (Idle past 2467 days)
Posts: 119
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 19 of 36 (564825)
06-13-2010 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Coyote
06-08-2010 9:48 PM


Re: RATE Project overview
quote:
And did the comments we have posted or linked make any change in your position?

Your comments and links have forced me to seriously consider the implications of the RATE project as follows:

1) The validity of the RATE research - was the data gathered in a scientific manner?

2) How does the YEC justify an accelerated decay and the corresponding side effects of such a hypothesis? There need to be some solid answers if this is to be a viable theory.

My plan is to investigate the answers to both these questions as well as gather further information on the topic of radio-isotope decay. You have not swayed me to your thinking - but you have called my position into question. If I am unable to find evidence refuting what you have posted then I'll have to concede the point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 06-08-2010 9:48 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Percy, posted 06-13-2010 7:03 AM BobTHJ has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15646
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 20 of 36 (564847)
06-13-2010 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by BobTHJ
06-13-2010 2:16 AM


Re: RATE Project overview
BobTHJ writes:

1) The validity of the RATE research - was the data gathered in a scientific manner?

Notice that the RATE group at least has data for you to examine? As opposed to Wile and Borger? How is it that your standard for the RATE group is to require scientifically valid data while apparently not caring whether Wile and Borger have any data at all?

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Improve wording.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by BobTHJ, posted 06-13-2010 2:16 AM BobTHJ has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5900
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 21 of 36 (564917)
06-13-2010 5:24 PM


Bump for Jzyehoshua
Your comments on the Ark thread were off topic, so I'll address a couple of points here instead.

Jzyehoshua writes:

At any rate, my point is that we assume many of the factors on which dating methodologies, and thus the age of the earth, are based on, to be the way they are because of Uniformitarianism. Why has Carbon 14 decayed at the same rate? Because that's what it does now. We assume the concept of Uniformitarianism to be true, aka 'the present is the key to the past', and assume that such huge catastrophes - which not only fly in the face of Uniformitarianism but we've now been forced to recognize did actually occur - did not affect carbon levels and the atmosphere. Because if they did, then the dating methodologies would be thrown off.

We have often heard that such dating methodologies are unreliable past 10,000 or 100,000 years. And yet, still they are used to reach these exorbitant dates.


With these two paragraphs you show that you don't know the first thing about Carbon 14 dating. Given this, why should those of us who do know something about it take anything you say seriously?

First, Carbon 14 dating is not used to measure the age of the earth. It is only useful for about 50,000 years.

Second, Carbon 14 dates are calibrated using tree rings and several other annular measures to account for atmospheric fluctuation. The need for this was described by de Vries (1958), and calibration has been a standard part of the method ever since.

Finally, the creationists' RATE Project, that is the subject of this thread, examined the problem of radioactive decay and found that it was indeed stable for some hundreds of millions of years. They didn't accept their own findings, but that is what their data showed.

Next time, read up on Carbon 14 dating in the scientific literature: those creationist websites are lying to you.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 22 of 36 (564930)
06-13-2010 7:45 PM


Why has Carbon 14 decayed at the same rate? Because that's what it does now.

Nope. Standard creationist error; you don't know the evidence for constant radioactive decay, so you assume that there is none.. See Message 13.


Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Coyote, posted 06-13-2010 7:49 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5900
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 23 of 36 (564931)
06-13-2010 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by JonF
06-13-2010 7:45 PM


Bump for Jzyehoshua
Good points, JonF.

Jzyehoshua -- you should read this entire thread.

(To get the "Bump for Jzyehoshua" title back.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by JonF, posted 06-13-2010 7:45 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 36 (565097)
06-14-2010 6:20 PM


So you would disagree then with TalkOrigins, which states decay rate can be affected?

quote:

Yes, the atmospheric content of carbon-14 can vary somewhat. The dipole moment of the earth's magnetic field, sunspot activity, the Suess effect, possible nearby supernova explosions, and even ocean absorption can have some effect on the carbon-14 concentration. However, these factors don't affect the radiocarbon dates by more than about 10-15 percent, judging from the above studies. Of course, when we reach the upper limit of the method, around 40,000 years for the standard techniques, we should allow for much greater uncertainty as the small amounts of C-14 remaining are much harder to measure.

Tree-ring data gives us a precise correction table for carbon-14 dates as far back as 8,000-9,000 years. The above study by Stuiver shows that the C-14 fluctuations in the atmosphere were quite reasonable as far back as 22,000 years ago. The earth's magnetic field seems to have the greatest effect on C-14 production, and there is no reason to believe that its strength was greatly different even 40,000 years ago.


(It would be interesting to know if the article was written before the discovery that the earth's magnetic field does in fact regularly reverse itself.)

Concerning tree ring dating, doesn't that still rely on rings which grow at the same rate? And could be affected by atmospheric levels?

At any rate, if carbon 14 dating goes back only 50,000 years, and tree ring dating only hundreds or in rare cases thousands of years, then the age of the earth must depend on another source, correct?

According to this page, it's still radiometric dating as well as zircon dating on which the earth's age depends, in which case the same questions still arise.

Was the decay rate of half lives constant? How can we know this for sure?

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 6:26 PM Jzyehoshua has responded
 Message 31 by Dr Jack, posted 06-15-2010 5:26 AM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5900
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 25 of 36 (565099)
06-14-2010 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 6:20 PM


Another gross mistake
There is a difference between decay rates and atmospheric fluctuations of Carbon 14. They are nowhere close to the same thing.

You really don't know enough about Carbon 14 to be making any statements about it's validity or accuracy, and you have just proved it once again.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 6:20 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 6:33 PM Coyote has responded

  
Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 36 (565100)
06-14-2010 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Coyote
06-14-2010 6:26 PM


Re: Another gross mistake
I have brought up this same reservation dozens of times on similar forums before, and have yet to receive a solid answer on the subject of why half-lives can't decay faster. Perhaps I don't understand it, which is why I will keep making the point until I see evidence to the contrary.

Also, what you call statements about its validity or accuracy, I call merely raising questions about an often poorly described and misunderstood topic. Maybe it's a matter of my not understanding it well enough as you say. Or maybe it's a matter of it being rarely explained at all because for the scientific community to better explain it would be to reveal the fundamental flaws in the reasoning process which it consists of.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 6:26 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 06-14-2010 6:47 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Coragyps, posted 06-14-2010 6:48 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 29 by JonF, posted 06-14-2010 9:02 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2010 10:55 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 06-15-2010 4:01 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 33 by cavediver, posted 06-15-2010 5:24 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5900
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 27 of 36 (565106)
06-14-2010 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 6:33 PM


Re: Another gross mistake
Here are some good links that will help you understand the Carbon 14 method a little better.

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.

The last link contains all the articles in the journal Radiocarbon. They are online, and have been for several years. Nothing hidden, and nothing to prevent you from learning about the Carbon 14 method except your own unwillingness.

Edited by Admin, : Add missing close to last anchor tag.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 6:33 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5273
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 28 of 36 (565107)
06-14-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 6:33 PM


Re: Another gross mistake
and have yet to receive a solid answer on the subject of why half-lives can't decay faster.

Half-lives don't decay. Half-lives are one way of expressing the measurement of how fast radioactive elements decay.

There are examples of the rate of decay changing a bit for some nuclei. These examples don't include carbon-14, potassium-40, uranium-235 or -238, or othere nuclei used for dating in the context of rocks. It is plausible that, if you stripped all 19 electrons from a potassium atom, its beta-decay rate would change. It's likely been calculated by how much it would change. But only one electron gets stripped off in earthly environments, so it is immaterial when you're dating rocks.

Go read this thread:

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?control=msg&t=6288

the correlations among various dating methods will amaze you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 6:33 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 29 of 36 (565122)
06-14-2010 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 6:33 PM


Re: Another gross mistake
have brought up this same reservation dozens of times on similar forums before, and have yet to receive a solid answer on the subject of why half-lives can't decay faster.

I don't believe you. This sort of information is widely known.

Probably the best evidence is that we're here. Were decay rates increased enough to make a 10,000 year old earth possible, the earth would still be molten. Oh, I suppose God could magic the heat away. But then all life would be killed by radiation. Oh, I suppose God could magic the radiation away. But then so many astronomical observations would have to be adjusted. Oh, I suppose God could magically adjust the stars and galaxies. But then the Oklo reactor wouldn't have operated (the moderating water would have boiled away too fast, and many other problems). Oh, I suppose God could have magicked the Oklo reactor. But then all that we know about nuclear physics is wrong *and we know a lot. Oh, I suppose God could magically adjust the fundamentals of the Universe.

After a while the number of ad-hoc miracles get to be too much for any rational person. Here's a couple of pointers to some information on some ore of the things God would have to magic away:

The Constancy of Constants
The Constancy of Constants, Part 2

And there's some moderately technical discussion of more evidence that falsifies AND (Accelerated Nuclear Decay) interspersed with discussion of the RATE results on zircons, at Helium in Zircons?.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 6:33 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18782
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 30 of 36 (565138)
06-14-2010 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 6:33 PM


try uranium halos, they'r fat free ...
Hi again Jzyehoshua, let me add to what others have said.

I have brought up this same reservation dozens of times on similar forums before, and have yet to receive a solid answer on the subject of why half-lives can't decay faster. Perhaps I don't understand it, which is why I will keep making the point until I see evidence to the contrary.

There are many aspects of physics that are interrelated, and if you change the constants to allow faster decay or radioactive isotopes you end up with a ton of problems that then need to be explained away with more ad hoc fantasies.

Here is one simple example: uranium halos.

Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) and old earth AND (b) constant physics?, especially Message 78

The alpha energy is inversely proportional to the rate of decay along an exponential curve.

If you change the decay rate, you change the alpha energy for that decay event, faster decay = higher alpha energy (more left over after getting through the Coulomb barrier)

The radius of the halo for a radioactive isotope is proportional to the alpha energy of the decay event along a polynomial curve.

If you change the alpha energy you change the radius for that isotope even more.

It takes thousands of decay events to form a halo for each isotope.

To form one for uranium takes hundreds of millions of years - according to modern physics with the constants constantly constant.

What happens if you change the decay rate during that time?


(photo from Gentry)

You don't get a uniform halo with the rings precisely at the observed radii that are predicted by modern physics with the constants constantly constant.

Just changing the decay rate by a factor of 2 would disrupt the uranium halo formation, and you would still have an earth that is over a hundred millions of years old.

Therefore the rates of decay have not, cannot have, changed significantly.

And thus the earth is old, very, very, old.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 6:33 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017