Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-23-2017 7:35 AM
361 online now:
jar, JonF, kbertsche, PaulK, Tangle (5 members, 356 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*, willietern
Post Volume:
Total: 821,066 Year: 25,672/21,208 Month: 1,299/2,338 Week: 56/364 Day: 7/49 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
15Next
Author Topic:   Radioactive carbon dating
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5293
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 136 of 221 (407308)
06-25-2007 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by fooj
06-25-2007 4:33 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
I'd prefer not to discuss this issue anymore though.

I can imagine so.........


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:33 PM fooj has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16036
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 137 of 221 (407309)
06-25-2007 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by fooj
06-25-2007 4:33 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
fooj writes:

Enough, I didn't expect a debate, nor do I desire to win one now.:wink:

Okay, Fooj, fair enough. You can pick this up again sometime down the road if you change your mind.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:33 PM fooj has not yet responded

    
fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 3682 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 138 of 221 (407310)
06-25-2007 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by kbertsche
06-25-2007 8:20 AM


Re: Two types of nuclides and Potassium Argon dating
quote:
1) the hypothesized "short half life" 40K must be present in volcanic flows, so it must be present in magma. Since its half-life is so short, to be present in the magma at any concentration it must be continually created somehow. But how? From what? If from normal K-40, it would quickly deplete the amount of K-40. And this would throw off the 39K-40K ratio, and we would see evidence of it.

Not all of the K40 is the kind with a short half-life. How the potassium is made in the magma is a good question which I don't know the answer to? In the paper they give a combined half-life for K40 of 795 years, so it isn't likely depleted in 1 day's time.

Perhaps they failed to mention that the k40 atom would be a second stage of decay. I believe they did exactly that?!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by kbertsche, posted 06-25-2007 8:20 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Coragyps, posted 06-25-2007 5:00 PM fooj has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6396
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 139 of 221 (407312)
06-25-2007 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by fooj
06-25-2007 4:33 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
Enough, I didn't expect a debate, nor do I desire to win one now

This isn't surprisng. You seem to be completely out of your depth here, and not even able to see just how ludicrous the Common Sense Science people are.

Take this example, their spinning ring model for elementary particles:

quote:
Dave Bergman developed and published (in 1990) the Spinning Ring model of elementary particles. Charge near the surface of the thin ring rotates at the speed of light.

The problem is that anything that rotates is accelerating. Nothing can rotate without accelerating. And accelerating charges radiate electromagnetic energy. If elementary particles had charges that were rotating, they would be radiationg energy; not only do we not see any energy being constantly radiated by each and every atom all the time, but by losing energy the rotation would have to stop.

This was a real problem with the Bohr model for the atom -- the one that pictured electrons rotating about the nucleus like a tiny solar system. That is why the Bohr atomic model had to be discarded. This "spinning ring" model has the same problem.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:33 PM fooj has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 5:50 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5293
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 140 of 221 (407313)
06-25-2007 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by fooj
06-25-2007 4:47 PM


Re: Two types of nuclides and Potassium Argon dating
How the potassium is made in the magma is a good question...

It isn't "made" there. It was made in a star (or a couple of them) that contributed dust to our star system when it coalesced 4.6 billion years ago. It got collected into minerals when our planet formed, and melted into magma at some time since then.

Perhaps they failed to mention that the k40 atom would be a second stage of decay.

"Second stage of decay" from what, pray tell? Scandium 44 won't hunt - it decays by electron capture. Spontaneous fission of strontium-80, maybe, with all the atoms splitting evenly? I wonder why the nuclear physicists since the Curies never noticed that?

Oh....'cause it doesn't happen.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:47 PM fooj has not yet responded

    
fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 3682 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 141 of 221 (407314)
06-25-2007 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Chiroptera
06-25-2007 4:44 PM


Re: Bingo!
quote:
But this is beside the point, don't you think? After all, if degrees mattered, then the fact that the vast majority of people with science degrees (in physics) accept the standard physical theories means that the Common Sense Science people are wrong.

No, I don't think so. It is easy to ignore something like physics theories. There are so many of them. And this one happens not to be an ether theory either.

quote:
Or, if the majority of people with science degrees are wrong about this, then it shows that people with science degrees can be wrong.

They wouldn't be dramatically wrong if the CSS people were completely right.

quote:
You can't have it both ways. You aren't going to win this argument by looking at degrees. This argument can only be decided by looking at the evidence. Now, what phenomena are predicted by these peoples' theory? Have these phenomena been observed? That is going to be the deciding factor as to whether there is any reason to discuss these theories.

Exactly.

Edited by fooj, : Grammar


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Chiroptera, posted 06-25-2007 4:44 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3976
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 142 of 221 (407318)
06-25-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by fooj
06-25-2007 4:14 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
I notice you've dropped any pretense of having defndable claims.

No, I don't agree with the assumption the xenoliths are old

They're older than the lava flow. And their age is not an assumption. It's a measurement.

I have rational ones; I assume you have yours unlike your other paranoid opponents.

Are yours secret?

I checked out the article and wasn't very impressed.

Why not? I find it impressive that 70% of recent lavas give accurate K-Ar dates and the remaining 30% have small errors. What's unimpressive?

Granted you guys got really lucky with neo-Roman city of pompeii, but given it's stone structures, I would say it isn't as old as the argon-argon date.

Boy, are you confused. The date is for the lava that covered Pompeii, not the city's structures.

so I have to give you credit for defendy the crappy method of Potassium-Argon dating decently.

Alas, I can't give you or the YECs any credit for attacking any kind of radiometric dating; they're frauds, and you are at least awesomely ignorant of the field and have no basis for any evaluation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:14 PM fooj has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6396
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 143 of 221 (407319)
06-25-2007 5:32 PM


Charlatans or sincere quacks?
Here is a list of their papers that you can purchase. But, strangely enough, there is no indication of where they were published (if they were ever published, besides this website), nor do they have abstracts associated with them. I have a strange feeling that these aren't scientific papers.

-

Wow! Did I call it or what? Here is their page of recommended links. Except for their own site, every one of these is a creationist site. Heh, even that moron, Walt Brown. If these guys are going to put in a plug for Walt Brown, how can we take anything they say seriously? And there is a site presenting dinosaur and human footprints together!

Although Common Sense Science doesn't itself present itself as a creationist website, this page (and the constant mention of "Judeo-Christian world-view" on other pages) makes it difficult to determine whether these people are just a support organization for creationism, or whether these people can't really understand the picture that modern science presents to us and are sincerely trying to extricate themselves from their intellectual dilemma.

Edited by Chiroptera, : Really bad typo.


Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by jar, posted 06-25-2007 5:43 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded
 Message 146 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 5:55 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29469
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 144 of 221 (407321)
06-25-2007 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Chiroptera
06-25-2007 5:32 PM


Re: Charlatans or sincere quacks?
Charlatans.

If you look, Thomas G. Barnes (daid, thank God) was an ICR Creationist and the First Dean of the bad joke called the ICR Graduate School.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Chiroptera, posted 06-25-2007 5:32 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 3682 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 145 of 221 (407322)
06-25-2007 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Chiroptera
06-25-2007 4:57 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
quote:
The problem is that anything that rotates is accelerating. Nothing can rotate without accelerating. And accelerating charges radiate electromagnetic energy. If elementary particles had charges that were rotating, they would be radiationg energy; not only do we not see any energy being constantly radiated by each and every atom all the time, but by losing energy the rotation would have to stop.

While I agree the spinning ring idea is crap, we see EMR(electromagnetic radition) from atoms all the time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Chiroptera, posted 06-25-2007 4:57 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Chiroptera, posted 06-25-2007 5:57 PM fooj has not yet responded

    
fooj
Junior Member (Idle past 3682 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 01-18-2007


Message 146 of 221 (407325)
06-25-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Chiroptera
06-25-2007 5:32 PM


Re: Charlatans or sincere quacks?
quote:
Although Common Sense Science doesn't itself present itself as a creationist website, this page (and the constant mention of "Judeo-Christian world-view" on other pages) makes it difficult to determine whether these people are just a support organization for creationism, or whether these people can't really understand the picture that modern science presents to us and are sincerely trying to extricate themselves from their intellectual dilemma.

They're eccentrics. What did you expect? You are very cocky too.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Chiroptera, posted 06-25-2007 5:32 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Chiroptera, posted 06-25-2007 5:59 PM fooj has not yet responded

    
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6396
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 147 of 221 (407326)
06-25-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by fooj
06-25-2007 5:50 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
While I agree the spinning ring idea is crap....

Which makes it strange that you find their conclusions interesting since this spinning ring idea is the very foundation of their theories and the basis of their conclusions.

-

...we see EMR(electromagnetic radition) from atoms all the time.

If by "all the time" you mean "when placed in an external electromagnetic field" (or some other perturbation) then, sure; after all, we do need a source of energy for that electromagnetic radiation.

But an atom just sitting there, minding its own business, without any perturbations (like an external electromagnetic field) will not be emitting any electromagnetic radiation. After all, if it did then we would have a source of new energy, a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 5:50 PM fooj has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6396
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 148 of 221 (407327)
06-25-2007 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by fooj
06-25-2007 5:55 PM


Re: Charlatans or sincere quacks?
They're eccentrics.

They sure are!

-

What did you expect?

I dunno; you are the one who brought them up as if they had something relevant to say.

-

You are very cocky too.

No, just easily amused by clowns. I find the Keystone Cops funny, too.

-

Added by edit:
Speaking of Klown Science, I see that it's John Davison's birthday today. (Give John our wishes for a happy birthday, Martin!).

Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 5:55 PM fooj has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1405
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 149 of 221 (407337)
06-25-2007 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by fooj
06-25-2007 4:33 PM


Re: A response to various criticisms
I wonder if there are details which are left out. It could be because my background in physics is admittedly weak, but I can make sense of every number in the chart and document. They could also be understating the evidence by not mentioning every measurement. It happens.

I don't see any evidence that the authors of the paper have taken ANY measurements. They are simply proposing a theory and computer model, and showing the results, along with tabulated data.

And if the potassium and argon was made in magma, it would be hard to date it at all accurately.

Not true! When the molten magma solidifies and crystalizes, initial Ar is pushed to crystal grain boundaries since it cannot chemically bond in a crystal structure. The 40K that IS incorporated into the crystal lattice slowly decays, leaving 40Ar stuck in the crystal lattice. The 39Ar-40Ar method is able to distinguish between Ar that is at grain boundaries and Ar that is trapped within the crystal lattice, so it gives accurate dates even in this case. Someone else has already posted links to some experimental data for this.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by fooj, posted 06-25-2007 4:33 PM fooj has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3829
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 150 of 221 (407340)
06-25-2007 6:59 PM


Topic drift alert!
All messages should have some obvious connection to Carbon dating.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


    
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017