Radioactive carbon dating

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

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

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 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.

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. "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.

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

I notice you've dropped any pretense of having defndable claims. They're older than the lava flow. And their age is not an assumption. It's a measurement. Are yours secret? 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? Boy, are you confused. The date is for the lava that covered Pompeii, not the city's structures. 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.- 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

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

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. 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.

All messages should have some obvious connection to Carbon dating.Adminnemooseus

---