Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 96 (8831 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2018 2:45 AM
281 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 278 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,362 Year: 5,185/29,783 Month: 1,117/1,467 Week: 3/311 Day: 3/51 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4546
47
4849
...
52Next
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5320
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 691 of 775 (826992)
01-15-2018 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 689 by creation
01-15-2018 1:29 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
Marie Curie and her friends and associates are well over a century ahead of you on this, Creation. The paths of nuclear decay, and the paths that don’t get followed, were pretty well worked out by 1950. Old news, in other words.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 689 by creation, posted 01-15-2018 1:29 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 696 by creation, posted 01-15-2018 4:02 PM Coragyps has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 692 of 775 (826993)
01-15-2018 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 687 by RAZD
01-15-2018 10:29 AM


Re: creation continues Starman's arguments
razd writes:

When you say "what nature" do you have a hypothesis or belief as to what natures there are?

No. You do not.

razd writes:

this is a science thread, and that means arguments pro and con must involve the scientific methodologies

Long as they cover it, of course. Too bad they don't for origins issues eh?

razd writes:

As long as a theory provides usable predictions

Guess the same is true of the bible? It has plenty of those. Unlike science, they are not sometimes wrong either.

razd writes:

what evidence do you have that a "former nature" existed that was significantly different from what we see around us, from historical, geological and archaeological studies of the past..

History? Long lives and spirits recorded in Sumer and Egypt. Geographical? Strange to mention that, what do you want countries and coordinates? Archaeological? Not sure we have a lot of that for the very early dawn of earth?
Science? None there at all, it is not even a contender in the debate as to what nature existed.

razd writes:

If you want to discuss the whole of dendrochronology..

That can't cover anything but this nature. If a ring grew fast several thousand years ago you have no way of knowing.

Edited by creation, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix 1 quote box.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 687 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2018 10:29 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 693 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 1:56 PM creation has responded
 Message 695 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2018 2:56 PM creation has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 693 of 775 (826998)
01-15-2018 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 692 by creation
01-15-2018 1:44 PM


Re: creation continues Starman's arguments
razd writes:

As long as a theory provides usable predictions

Guess the same is true of the bible? It has plenty of those.

What are the Top 5?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 692 by creation, posted 01-15-2018 1:44 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 697 by creation, posted 01-15-2018 4:05 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 694 of 775 (827002)
01-15-2018 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 689 by creation
01-15-2018 1:29 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
razd writes:

True, but that gives us additional evidence for an old earth, because

  • short half-life isotopes have all decayed to the next isotope in the decay chain, a fact that would not occur with a young earth, and they leave evidence of their existence in the existence of those products,
  • the products of the decay of those short half-life isotopes a just exactly the same products as we observe today, and they are in just exactly the same proportions to the other elements as we observe today.
So prove that the next isotopes in the chain cam from decay?

Corrected to show list in original post. If you copy from the "Message you're replying to" in "Peek Mode" then you can also copy the coding.

Isotopes do not naturally occur is pure concentrations, they only occur in pure concentrations through decay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain

quote:
The three naturally-occurring actinide alpha decay chains given below—thorium, uranium/radium (from U-238), and actinium (from U-235)—each ends with its own specific lead isotope (Pb-208, Pb-206, and Pb-207 respectively). All these isotopes are stable and are also present in nature as primordial nuclides, but their excess amounts in comparison with lead-204 (which has only a primordial origin) can be used in the technique of uranium-lead dating to date rocks.

The 4n chain of Th-232 is commonly called the "thorium series" or "thorium cascade". Beginning with naturally occurring thorium-232, this series includes the following elements: actinium, bismuth, lead, polonium, radium, radon and thallium. All are present, at least transiently, in any natural thorium-containing sample, whether metal, compound, or mineral. The series terminates with lead-208.

The 4n + 1 chain of Np-237 is commonly called the "neptunium series" or "neptunium cascade". In this series, while traces of natural neptunium are still continually being produced in minute quantities in uranium ores, only two of the isotopes involved are still commonly found naturally, namely the final two: bismuth-209 and thallium-205. ...

The 4n+2 chain of U-238 is called the "uranium series" or "radium series". Beginning with naturally occurring uranium-238, this series includes the following elements: astatine, bismuth, lead, polonium, protactinium, radium, radon, thallium, and thorium. All are present, at least transiently, in any natural uranium-containing sample, whether metal, compound, or mineral. The series terminates with lead-206.

The 4n+3 chain of uranium-235 is commonly called the "actinium series" or "plutonium cascade". Beginning with the naturally-occurring isotope U-235, this decay series includes the following elements: actinium, astatine, bismuth, francium, lead, polonium, protactinium, radium, radon, thallium, and thorium. All are present, at least transiently, in any sample containing uranium-235, whether metal, compound, ore, or mineral. This series terminates with the stable isotope lead-207.


The last one was what tipped off the discovery of the Oklo reactors.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 689 by creation, posted 01-15-2018 1:29 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 698 by creation, posted 01-15-2018 4:13 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 695 of 775 (827004)
01-15-2018 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 692 by creation
01-15-2018 1:44 PM


Re: creation continues Starman's arguments
You are forgetting the / to close the quotes (should be [/qs] to close) ... I've fixed them here

razd writes:

When you say "what nature" do you have a hypothesis or belief as to what natures there are?

No. You do not.

That was Phat replying to you in Message 685, which you already answered with a dodge.

razd writes:

this is a science thread, and that means arguments pro and con must involve the scientific methodologies

Long as they cover it, of course. Too bad they don't for origins issues eh?

This thread is not about misinformed comments on abiogenesis, and origins is not part of the thread. There are other threads about abiogenesis you can comment on, or you can start one at Proposed New Topics

razd writes:

As long as a theory provides usable predictions

Guess the same is true of the bible? ...

There are no theories in the bible, and discussing them is irrelevant to this thread. Please deal with the evidence on this thread rather than posting pot-shots with no substantiating evidence. Your problem is to deal with the evidence, not talk about the bible.

... It has plenty of those. Unlike science, they are not sometimes wrong either.

Again, this is not a bible study thread, but a science thread. Whether or not you or anyone else thinks predictions in the bible are tested is immaterial to this thread.

razd writes:

what evidence do you have that a "former nature" existed that was significantly different from what we see around us, from historical, geological and archaeological studies of the past..

History? Long lives and spirits recorded in Sumer and Egypt. ...

Irrelevant. What is relevant is that 14-C levels in artifacts in Egyptian pyramids give the same dates as the historical record, thus validating the 14C usage to correlate artifacts to tree rings.

... Geographical? Strange to mention that, what do you want countries and coordinates?

Indeed, because curiously, what I mentioned was geological not geographical. Looks like you need to pay more attention, rather than trolling for it.

... Archaeological? Not sure we have a lot of that for the very early dawn of earth?

And amusingly, we do not need to go back to the "very early dawn of earth" to show that young earth creationism is a bald false view of reality. That the data extends well beyond any YEC scenario has been shown, that it cross-correlates and provides consilient results across many different measurement systems shows that these data are robust and the conclusions made from the data are valid.

Science? None there at all, it is not even a contender in the debate as to what nature existed

Except you have yet to establish that you know what science is or how it works. Your comments bleed ignorance.

razd writes:

If you want to discuss the whole of dendrochronology..

That can't cover anything but this nature. If a ring grew fast several thousand years ago you have no way of knowing.

But I do. Read the thread and stop shooting in the dark of ignorance. Just like starman ... going around to a bunch of threads and posting simplistic comments of "you have no way of knowing" is not an argument, is not science, is not debating in good faith.

Your task, should you undertake an actual debate on the subject at hand, is to show that what I have posted on this thread is false, not to make stuff up. This task involves you providing substantiatine evidence and some form of theory to demonstrate your argument provides a better explanation.

Until then you have squat and all you are doing is trolling. Just like starman did.

Sadly, for you, all your arguments provide are teaching moments for other people reading this thread to see and understand the science versus your threadbare arguments based on fantasy and imagination.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 692 by creation, posted 01-15-2018 1:44 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 701 by creation, posted 01-16-2018 9:39 AM RAZD has responded

  
creation
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 696 of 775 (827008)
01-15-2018 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 691 by Coragyps
01-15-2018 1:44 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
Coragyps writes:

Marie Curie and her friends and associates are well over a century ahead of you on this, Creation. The paths of nuclear decay, and the paths that don’t get followed, were pretty well worked out by 1950. Old news, in other words.

No. No relation.

Edited by creation, : No reason given.

Edited by creation, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 691 by Coragyps, posted 01-15-2018 1:44 PM Coragyps has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 705 by Coragyps, posted 01-16-2018 5:04 PM creation has not yet responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 697 of 775 (827009)
01-15-2018 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 693 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2018 1:56 PM


Re: creation continues Starman's arguments
newcatseye writes:

What are the Top 5?

Bethlehem, virgin, captivity of Israel, temple destroyed, kingdoms after Babylon itemized...to name a few.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 693 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 1:56 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 699 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 4:32 PM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 698 of 775 (827010)
01-15-2018 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 694 by RAZD
01-15-2018 2:20 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
razd writes:

Isotopes do not naturally occur is pure concentrations, they only occur in pure concentrations through decay.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain

Pure concentrations? Where in the article does it mention that? What exactly is a pure concentration?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 694 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2018 2:20 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 700 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2018 8:50 PM creation has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 699 of 775 (827011)
01-15-2018 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 697 by creation
01-15-2018 4:05 PM


Re: creation continues Starman's arguments
newcatseye writes:

What are the Top 5?

Bethlehem, virgin, captivity of Israel, temple destroyed, kingdoms after Babylon itemized...to name a few.

Predictions are for things that happen in the future and not the past, silly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 697 by creation, posted 01-15-2018 4:05 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 702 by creation, posted 01-16-2018 9:41 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19478
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 700 of 775 (827028)
01-15-2018 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 698 by creation
01-15-2018 4:13 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
Another teaching moment ...

Pure concentrations? Where in the article does it mention that? What exactly is a pure concentration?

This, readers, is why creationists make such poor debaters: they are stunningly ignorant of the topics that they pretend to be able to talk about. They think their opinions are equal to scientific results.

... What exactly is a pure concentration?

We don't even need pure concentrations to identify the products of radioactive decay.

A pure -- or purer -- concentration is when one isotope is disproportionately represented, rather than all the ones that occur in nature in the proportions they naturally occur in.

Isotopes cannot be separated chemically - there are no reactions that depend on isotope value ...

Thus if you have disproportionately high levels of Lead-206 or Lead-207 you know that they are (end) products of decay.

quote:
Lead (82Pb) has four stable isotopes: 204Pb, 206Pb, 207Pb, 208Pb. Lead-204 is entirely a primordial nuclide and is not a radiogenic nuclide. The three isotopes lead-206, lead-207, and lead-208 represent the ends of three decay chains: the uranium series (or radium series), the actinium series, and the thorium series, respectively. These series represent the decay chain products of long-lived primordial U-238, U-235, and Th-232, respectively. However, each of them also occurs, to some extent, as primordial isotopes that were made in supernovae, rather than radiogenically as daughter products. The fixed ratio of lead-204 to the primordial amounts of the other lead isotopes may be used as the baseline to estimate the extra amounts of radiogenic lead present in rocks as a result of decay from uranium and thorium.

As noted in Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? the lead at the center of uranium halos only comes from decay of uranium: pure isotopes, no Lead-204. The proportions of the other decay isotopes and elements can be determined from the densities of the rings formed. They all fit a consistent pattern of decay chain production.

... Where in the article does it mention that? ...

Where they talk about the discovery of the reactors. That was the clue to finding them.

Perhaps if you actually read the messages, and actually investigated the issues you might be able to put together a better argument.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 698 by creation, posted 01-15-2018 4:13 PM creation has not yet responded

  
creation
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 701 of 775 (827043)
01-16-2018 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 695 by RAZD
01-15-2018 2:56 PM


Re: creation continues Starman's arguments
razd writes:

This thread is not about misinformed comments on abiogenesis, and origins is not part of the thread. There are other threads about abiogenesis you can comment on, or you can start one at Proposed New Topics

This thread is not about you tossing out the word science and have it embrace whatever you like either.
razd writes:

There are no theories in the bible, and discussing them is irrelevant to this thread. Please deal with the evidence on this thread rather than posting pot-shots with no substantiating evidence. Your problem is to deal with the evidence, not talk about the bible.

Testable predictions I think was what was being discussed, not theories. Keep up. Since you claim predictions, post them. Remember, a prediction is not a circular argument designed to fit the evidence you beliefs.

razd writes:

Irrelevant. What is relevant is that 14-C levels in artifacts in Egyptian pyramids give the same dates as the historical record, thus validating the 14C usage to correlate artifacts to tree rings.


False. That is NOT relevant unless it came about in this nature. Your circular reasoning so called dating collaboration is indeed circular. You asusme a same nature in the past for both, and then claim by so doing, the imaginary dates agree.

razd writes:

Indeed, because curiously, what I mentioned was geological not geographical

Hold on...what exactly is geographical that you claim here??
razd writes:


And amusingly, we do not need to go back to the "very early dawn of earth" to show that young earth creationism is a bald false view of reality. That the data extends well beyond any YEC scenario has been shown, that it cross-correlates and provides consilient results across many different measurement systems shows that these data are robust and the conclusions made from the data are valid.

Sorry, no way. You should face the fact that the dates you use are faith based and not accepted as reality by YECs. For example, my opinion of when the flood was is about 70,000,000 years ago in your imagined science time. That equals about 4500 real actual years ago. So when you claim something is beyond YEC time remember you are only talking about faith based religious time that is not accepted.
razd writes:

Except you have yet to establish that you know what science is or how it works. Your comments bleed ignorance.

You have yet to establish that science works at all outside the fishbowl of this present nature. Your comments ooze self righteous dark religion.
razd writes:

But I do. Read the thread and stop shooting in the dark of ignorance. Just like starman ... going around to a bunch of threads and posting simplistic comments of "you have no way of knowing" is not an argument, is not science, is not debating in good faith.

And you pretend that somewhere hiding in a desert of belifs that you post as if they were science ,there is some weighty proof or support for. So far it doesn't look like there is anything but smoke and no fire.

razd writes:

Your task, should you undertake an actual debate on the subject at hand, is to show that what I have posted on this thread is false, not to make stuff up. This task involves you providing substantiatine evidence and some form of theory to demonstrate your argument provides a better explanation.

Your posts on any thread are not as deep or mystical or important as you thought apparently. In posts to me you offered preciesly zero! Allusions to some great posts you made. Get serious.
razd writes:

..your arguments provide are teaching moments for other people reading this thread to see and understand the science versus your threadbare arguments based on fantasy and imagination.

Some may not be learning what you think! Some may learn that maybe science doesn't really know after all.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 695 by RAZD, posted 01-15-2018 2:56 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 704 by Coyote, posted 01-16-2018 10:27 AM creation has not yet responded
 Message 706 by RAZD, posted 01-17-2018 7:56 AM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: 01-14-2018


Message 702 of 775 (827044)
01-16-2018 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 699 by New Cat's Eye
01-15-2018 4:32 PM


Re: creation continues Starman's arguments
Great. So you claim it was after the fact. No last week either? Let's look at how they went after the fact to SN1987a (and almost everything else in space as needed) to predict what kind of star actually blew up since they were wrong. Then look at the rings...they never predicted were there. Etc etc.

Edited by creation, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 699 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-15-2018 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 703 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-16-2018 9:49 AM creation has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 703 of 775 (827047)
01-16-2018 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 702 by creation
01-16-2018 9:41 AM


Re: creation continues Starman's arguments
Great. So you claim it was after the fact. No last week either? Let's look at how they went after the fact to SN1987a (and almost everything else in space as needed) to predict what kind of star actually blew up since they were wrong. Then look at the rings...they never predicted were there. Etc etc.

And now you're gonna Gish Gallop? Nice, this is a textbook failure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by creation, posted 01-16-2018 9:41 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 707 by creation, posted 01-17-2018 9:54 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 708 by creation, posted 01-17-2018 9:59 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6099
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 704 of 775 (827053)
01-16-2018 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 701 by creation
01-16-2018 9:39 AM


Re: creation continues babbling...
That is NOT relevant unless it came about in this nature. Your circular reasoning so called dating collaboration is indeed circular. You asusme a same nature in the past for both, and then claim by so doing, the imaginary dates agree.

The evidence for some "other nature" is totally lacking. To try and rely on this imaginary "other nature" to negate the parts of science that disprove bible-based claims is ridiculous.

You asusme a same nature in the past for both, and then claim by so doing, the imaginary dates agree.

You assume an "other nature" in the past, then claim the dates don't agree. One approach is based on evidence, the other on religiously-based fantasy.

You should face the fact that the dates you use are faith based and not accepted as reality by YECs. For example, my opinion of when the flood was is about 70,000,000 years ago in your imagined science time. That equals about 4500 real actual years ago. So when you claim something is beyond YEC time remember you are only talking about faith based religious time that is not accepted.

You have to place the flood 70 mya because all earlier placements for the flood have been disproved. Actually, all proposed dates for the "flood" have been disproved.

As far as something "not accepted as reality by YECs" -- that's pretty funny. Why should scientists care a whit about what YECs believe and don't believe? YECs avoid evidence, logic, and the scientific method like vampires are supposed to avoid garlic. Most of the attention you get is because its amusing to poke holes in your fantasy.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 701 by creation, posted 01-16-2018 9:39 AM creation has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5320
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 705 of 775 (827071)
01-16-2018 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 696 by creation
01-15-2018 4:02 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
Lots of relation. If the only source of an isotope is, say, in the decay chain from uranium 235, that’s where it had to have come from. Unless, I guess, it was planted by Satan to deceive mankind, like some say fossils were.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by creation, posted 01-15-2018 4:02 PM creation has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
4546
47
4849
...
52Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018