|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: PRATT Party and Free for All | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1025 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Still other creationists claimed changes in the decay rates, but the RATE project, run by creationists, has pretty much done away with those claims. The idea of creation scientists undermining creationist claims by doing real science intrigued me, so I went to have a look at RATE's findings. I'm not sure how you got the idea they'd done away with the possibility of changing decay rates - their publications are still very much in favour of the idea. From one of their articles at ICR:
quote: Where are they doing away with claims about changing decay rates?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apothecus Member (Idle past 2411 days) Posts: 275 From: CA USA Joined: |
Hey Caffeine.
Where are they doing away with claims about changing decay rates? If you read a bit further, you'll find a section that deals more with this "scrunching" of all the evidenced billions of years of radioactive decay and the heat which would have had to have been generated from said decay. And at the end of it, you'll find a passage (which I'm sure the authors wish could just go away) which can be summed up in Randy Isaac's analysis of the RATE project:
The RATE team has honestly acknowledged that even if their technical claims were accurate, there remain unsolved problems that cannot be reconciled with any known scientific process. In his summary at the RATE conference in Denver on Sept. 15, 2007, Don DeYoung noted the need to invoke divine intervention in order to circumvent these problems. However, the oft-stated summary by the RATE team, that their results provide assurance of the biblical interpretation of a young earth, leaves the average listener with the mistaken impression that these problems are nonexistent, trivial, or soon to be resolved. Rather, the RATE team acknowledged overwhelming evidence for hundreds of millions of year’s worth of radioactivity [12] and admitted that compressing this activity into a few thousand years would generate more than enough heat to vaporize all granitic rock. [13] They state that no known thermodynamic process could dissipate such a large amount of heat. [14] Their expressed hope in solving heat dissipation by cooling via enhanced cosmological expansion [15] has not been realized and is not consistent with our knowledge of the expanding universe. [16] Thus, the RATE team has provided solid evidence that, scientifically, the earth cannot be thousands but must be billions of years old. RATE Dialogue - in PSCF (March 2008) Emphasis mine. Seems as if they've come to the same conclusions as the rest of us but would rather not believe their own evidence. That they discovered that our earth and everything on it would have, in fact, vaporized in their scenario (without magick, that is) will probably discourage any other "creation science" attempts to debunk the theory of an old earth. Have a good one. Edited by Apothecus, : added bolds "My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
caffeine writes: (Coyote) writes: The idea of creation scientists undermining creationist claims by doing real science intrigued me, so I went to have a look at RATE's findings. I'm not sure how you got the idea they'd done away with the possibility of changing decay rates - their publications are still very much in favour of the idea. From one of their articles at ICR:
Still other creationists claimed changes in the decay rates, but the RATE project, run by creationists, has pretty much done away with those claims.Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE project indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay took place in one or more short episodes between 4,000 and 14,000 years ago. The results strongly support our accelerated decay hypothesis, that episodes with billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay occurred in the recent past, such as during the Genesis flood, the Fall of Adam, or early Creation week. Such accelerations would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth down to the 6,000 years that a straightforward reading of the Bible gives.
Where are they doing away with claims about changing decay rates? Hi Caffeine. Thanks for weighing in.
Here is a better site which covers this more extensively with illustrations and other pertinent data. 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:
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. It is my understanding that ICR is YEC, claiming that Planet Earth is about 6000 y. o. ICR's hypothesis model is not literalist Bible in that they assume six 24 hr days in Genesis one, when in fact, the literal reading clearly states that the creation of the solar system on day four determned the days, years and seasons as we observe today. Having said that, relative to the Genesis account, perhaps the beginning of isotope decay came at day five or even at the fall/earth curse event, both of which would (in a literal reading) calculate at around six millenniums, the beginning of such would be the beginning of the solar system. Two Genesis factors may perhaps have a bearing on the beginning of decay: 1) that before work began on the planet it was in darkness. 2) that heat and light via supernatural means may not have caused isotope decay to begin. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2295 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
Correct me if I'm worng, but I don't think light and/or heat are responsible for radioactive decay.
that heat and light via supernatural means may not have caused isotope decay to begin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Huntard writes: Correct me if I'm worng, but I don't think light and/or heat are responsible for radioactive decay. Hi Huntard. Did you notice the word, perhaps in my statement. I was not perporting to be an authority. However consider this relative to the cited ICR scientific research ABE: (not ICR's website): Radioactive isotopes don't tell much about the age of sedimentary rocks (or fossils). The radioactive minerals in sedimentary rocks are derived from the weathering of igneous rocks. If the sedimentary rock were dated, the age date would be the time of cooling of the magma that formed the igneous rock. The date would not tell anything about when the sedimentary rock formed. Does isotope decay occur in frozen cold and dark bodies having no atmosphere in a solar setting? I don't know. Likely nobody knows but the alleged creator/manager/designer who allegedly effected it all as per the Genesis record. If I understand the implications of the above, dating sediment layers accurately is hampered by contamination by the old igneous sediment in the soil as per sedimentary dirt dating. Hopefull Coyote will weigh in again here from a professional perspective. Edited by Buzsaw, : add ABE BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1025 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
Does isotope decay occur in frozen cold and dark bodies having no atmosphere in a solar setting? Yes. Many experiments have been done on radioactive decay, and they seem to suggest that, if it is affected by temperature, light or the atmosphere around it, it's only affected in a very small way. Radioactive decay still happens in utter darkness, in the freezing cold and in a vacuum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Hopefull Coyote will weigh in again here from a professional perspective.
My expertise is in radiocarbon dating, not the other forms of radiometric dating. But radiocarbon is enough to show the purported flood did not occur at the appointed time. And a previous poster is correct, it is the ratios of the isotopes that give the age. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: I could be forgetful but surely not dishonest as you imply, as I have a healthy fear of Jehovah, god of us all, whether or not we acknowledge him. It was not my intention to imply dishonesty but rather a possible prior lack of interest that may have caused you to miss what I, and I am sure others, consider the most important series of threads in the history of EvC. It was my intention to suggest that you may have missed these threads due to the fact you disagreed with what you assumed were their conclusions. However, now that you appear to be genuinely interested in why nearly all individuals deeply and specifically trained in evaluating the evidence of an old universe and lack of a recent global flood provided from the earth (that God made at least according to some of us), I would hope you consider RAZD's threads with the same dispassionate distance that you would any 'purported evidence' from ICR or AIG. But at least you are interested, I hope you can soon find the time to read and evaluate both positions using critical reasoning instead of any emotional attachments you may have in supporting fundamentalist over more mainstream or progressive forms of Christianity. So, in so many words, no disrespect was intended. The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes. Salman Rushdie This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi anglagard, thanks for the referrals.
However, now that you appear to be genuinely interested in why nearly all individuals deeply and specifically trained in evaluating the evidence of an old universe and lack of a recent global flood provided from the earth (that God made at least according to some of us), I would hope you consider RAZD's threads with the same dispassionate distance that you would any 'purported evidence' from ICR or AIG. I think the thread that best deals with the issue of constant radioactivity rates is the "Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?" thread as it links together several aspects that would all need to change in sync to replicate normal decay in some rapid decay scenario:
quote: It appears that the relationship between decay rate and decay energy is not inversely linear, but inversely exponential (thus the isotopes with the shortest half-life produce alpha-particles with the highest energy), and it appears that the relationship between decay energy and penetration distance is not linear but polynomial (it appears that the penetration depth increases with the square of the energy). Decreasing the half-lives by only 1/2 of the current amounts would blow the halos out of proportion to each other, increase their overall size, and only accomplish a very small minute fraction of the reduction necessary to make a young earth possible (the half-life of 238U is 4,468,000,000 years and half of that is only 2.2 billion years) --- there would be no 238 halo patterns of the proper size and proportion left from any period of vastly decreased decay rates.
FURTHERMORE, the longer half-life rings (like 238U) would not have enough time to form after the half-lives have stabilized at today's rates --- there would be no 238U rings formed in only 10,000 years.
quote: None of those pictures would be possible with any significant change in the decay rate in the last hundred million years, as "these halos take at least several hundred million years to form" -- after the decay rates are stabilized at today's rates. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : more clrty Edited by Admin, : Narrow image width. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Hi Razd. Perhaps this thinking is way too simplistic, but I'm going to pose it anyhow. In dating dirt, it would seem (to the layman) that if there was no catastrophy since the last Ice Age around 10,000 y ago that it should be easy to layer date the Great Planes like in Kansas, Eastern Colorado, Eastern Nebraska and Iowa etc. It would seem that the layers would just stack up uniformly and continuous over the entire region back 10,000 year. What say you?
Edited by Buzsaw, : change message titile Edited by Buzsaw, : Fix Title BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
It would seem that the layers would just stack up uniformly and continuous over the entire region back 10,000 year. What say you?
There should be areas where the stratigraphy is intact. I don't know why you would expect all areas to be uniform and intact. Ever see a sand dune? A meandering stream channel? Wind and water can do a lot to soils. There still is no evidence of a global flood during this time, all the "what ifs" you can muster notwithstanding. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4511 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: ZenMonkey writes:
According to the Biblical record, it is not known how long days 1 through 5 were. They could have been a very long time or relatively short. Not given. The record says the Holy Spirit moved/worked on the waters etc, i.e did whatever work needed to be done on each day. Light was applied by the HS at just the right amount to evaporate the waters below enough to form a canopy atmosphere. Again, not given as to how long. Am I understanding this correctly? This planet - this entire universe, it seems - was changed so radically and completely less than 10,000 years ago that there's absolutely no traces of this change actually happening? And so on from there. You're missing the point that I'm trying to make, Buz. Your claim appears to be that the world - this planet - was somehow uncountably different pre-Flood. I don't believe that you dispute the standard Biblical reading that the Flood happened somewhere about 4000 to 6000 years ago. I'm not interested here in how far back the history of the universe goes before that. I'm simply looking at your assertion that - whatever the world was like before the Flood - as a result of the Flood the world went through cataclysmic changes. Not just new seas or new continents or mountains much higher than mountains had ever been before, but more drastic changes such as the loss of the "vapor canopy" and major alterations in the atmosphere. In fact, if I understand you, your claim is that even things like radiometric dating are unreliable because of how much the Flood affected the world. If you mean that atomic decay rates were affected, that means major changes in the nature of matter itself. Regardless, what I was pointing out was that, if what you're saying is true, somehow this abrupt, world-altering event was so transforming that it appears to have left no traces of it ever happening. Whether from archeology, geology, physics, astronomy, or any other discipline, any physical evidence that you care to examine actually demonstrates no abrupt change of that nature anywhere in the date range that you're looking at. I would even dare to say that there is no evidence anywhere of the laws of physics suddenly shifting at any time in the measurable past. There is just nothing there to mark this claimed huge event. There is only measurable evidence, from many disciplines, showing a verifiable, continuous history going back for millions and billions of years. Most of what you claim is unknowable is actually very understandable and knowable, Buz. The universe is a fascinating place. I really am sorry that much of what you appear to believe about it is flatly contradicted by the facts. But it is. Your suppositions and musings have no basis other than your reading of scripture and your imagination. Or, as Willow (from Buffy the Vampire Slayer) once said: "You're just making up made up things." I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Coyote writes: There should be areas where the stratigraphy is intact. I don't know why you would expect all areas to be uniform and intact.Ever see a sand dune? A meandering stream channel? Wind and water can do a lot to soils. Hi Coyote. I've been across the Great Plains dozens of times; pretty much all over them. There are no sand dunes of any significance. There's the Sand Hills in Northwestern Neb, but these do not appear to be formed by wind and not in the plains areas which I specified in my message. I've visited the Sand Dunes near Las Cruces NM, but again, they are not in the plains states cited. As for the streams and rivers, yes, the areas near them should change some, but there are many square miles which, before cultivated, evidently had a continuous yearly growth of grass and other ground cover to protect from extreme or prolonged loss of dirt. Dust storms in the plains states are not a major event as they are on the desert regions. Are you apprised on specific areas where the stratigraphy is intact, the dating data on them and how large they are etc? This is more of what I'm interested in since it pertains more directly to your claim that dirt dating debunks the flood. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Zen Monkey writes: I'm simply looking at your assertion that - whatever the world was like before the Flood - as a result of the Flood the world went through cataclysmic changes. Not just new seas or new continents or mountains much higher than mountains had ever been before, but more drastic changes such as the loss of the "vapor canopy" and major alterations in the atmosphere. In fact, if I understand you, your claim is that even things like radiometric dating are unreliable because of how much the Flood affected the world. If you mean that atomic decay rates were affected, that means major changes in the nature of matter itself. Regardless, what I was pointing out was that, if what you're saying is true, somehow this abrupt, world-altering event was so transforming that it appears to have left no traces of it ever happening. Whether from archeology, geology, physics, astronomy, or any other discipline, any physical evidence that you care to examine actually demonstrates no abrupt change of that nature anywhere in the date range that you're looking at. I would even dare to say that there is no evidence anywhere of the laws of physics suddenly shifting at any time in the measurable past. There is just nothing there to mark this claimed huge event. There is only measurable evidence, from many disciplines, showing a verifiable, continuous history going back for millions and billions of years. Hi Zen. I'm glad we're not in the science forums because this is where I get in trouble in that fora. I appreciate these the patient and gracious replies from some of you. This is how I learn, from the ability to aire my views which are unique from conventional creationism and secular science and where I can explain more indepth why I have adamantly held to my beliefs these 7 or so years with EvC.
This Wiki site alludes to this relative to rates of atomic decay and it's effect on matter, as I understand it. 1) Don't atomic decay rates effect/change matter? 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? 3) Wouldn't matter/soil be affected after the flood relative to a change in the rate of atom decay? 4) Isn't the conventional model uniformitarian whereas the Buz/Biblical hypothesis is not?
Radioactive decay is the process in which an unstable atomic nucleus spontaneously loses energy by emitting ionizing particles and radiation. This decay, or loss of energy, results in an atom of one type, called the parent nuclide transforming to an atom of a different type, named the daughter nuclide. For example: a carbon-14 atom (the "parent") emits radiation and transforms to a nitrogen-14 atom (the "daughter"). This is a stochastic process on the atomic level, in that it is impossible to predict when a given atom will decay,[1] but given a large number of similar atoms the decay rate, on average, is predictable. Zen Monkey writes:
Most of what you claim is unknowable is actually very understandable and knowable, Buz. The universe is a fascinating place. I really am sorry that much of what you appear to believe about it is flatly contradicted by the facts. But it is. Your suppositions and musings have no basis other than your reading of scripture and your imagination. As per my above considerations, wouldn't either POV be feasable, depending on how what is observed is interpreted? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Are you apprised on specific areas where the stratigraphy is intact, the dating data on them and how large they are etc? This is more of what I'm interested in since it pertains more directly to your claim that dirt dating debunks the flood.
I don't know the archaeology of the midwest. But an intact soil profile anywhere debunks the global flood at about 4,350 years. I have provided you with one example. I have seen many more in my own work. You can come up with all the "what ifs" you want, but they don't change the facts I have presented to you. I realize what you are doing is trying to keep belief alive, but at some point you really will have to face the facts: the story of a global flood about 4,350 years ago is a myth that has been disproved based on many lines of evidence. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024