Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 6:26 AM
18 online now:
PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (3 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,136 Year: 5,173/19,786 Month: 1,295/873 Week: 191/460 Day: 7/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Author Topic:   PRATT Party and Free for All
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1624
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 46 of 126 (546333)
02-10-2010 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Coyote
02-09-2010 8:11 PM


Rates according to RATE
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:
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 02-09-2010 8:11 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Apothecus, posted 02-10-2010 9:22 AM caffeine has not yet responded
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 02-10-2010 10:07 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 520 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


Message 47 of 126 (546339)
02-10-2010 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by caffeine
02-10-2010 5:42 AM


Re: Rates according to RATE
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 yearís 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.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-pscf.htm#1

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by caffeine, posted 02-10-2010 5:42 AM caffeine has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 126 (546342)
02-10-2010 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by caffeine
02-10-2010 5:42 AM


Re: Rates according to RATE
caffeine writes:

(Coyote) writes:

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:
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by caffeine, posted 02-10-2010 5:42 AM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Huntard, posted 02-10-2010 10:14 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 62 by JonF, posted 02-12-2010 11:55 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 404 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 49 of 126 (546344)
02-10-2010 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
02-10-2010 10:07 AM


Re: Rates according to RATE
Buzsaw writes:

that heat and light via supernatural means may not have caused isotope decay to begin.


Correct me if I'm worng, but I don't think light and/or heat are responsible for radioactive decay.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 02-10-2010 10:07 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 02-10-2010 12:25 PM Huntard has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 126 (546360)
02-10-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Huntard
02-10-2010 10:14 AM


Re: Rates according to RATE
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Huntard, posted 02-10-2010 10:14 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by caffeine, posted 02-10-2010 12:51 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 52 by Coyote, posted 02-10-2010 2:06 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1624
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 51 of 126 (546365)
02-10-2010 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Buzsaw
02-10-2010 12:25 PM


Re: Rates according to RATE
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 02-10-2010 12:25 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 52 of 126 (546388)
02-10-2010 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Buzsaw
02-10-2010 12:25 PM


Decay rates
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 02-10-2010 12:25 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 53 of 126 (546423)
02-10-2010 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Buzsaw
02-09-2010 10:06 AM


Re: Dating Dirt
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.
ó 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. Itís us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Buzsaw, posted 02-09-2010 10:06 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2010 11:13 PM anglagard has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19818
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 54 of 126 (546454)
02-10-2010 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by anglagard
02-10-2010 4:21 PM


Change in radioactivity issue
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) and 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:
Message 1: Where I am starting is from Dr Wiens:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
quote:
At any rate, halos from uranium inclusions are far more common. Because of uranium's long half-lives, these halos take at least several hundred million years to form. Because of this, most people agree that halos provide compelling evidence for a very old Earth.

The basic radiohalo principle is simple: radioactivity produces alpha decay, and the alpha particle have a certain energy (usually measured in million electron volts, MeV) based on the familiar e=mc² formula and the conservation of energy/mass (see ref):
M1 = M2 + mp + e/c²

Thus when you have isotopes decaying into other isotopes by alpha decay, the energy of the alpha particle is unique to that decay stage because of the unique before and after mass of the decaying isotope and the constant mass of the alpha particle.

This unique energy then determines how far (on average) an alpha particle will travel before it gets stopped and absorbed into the surrounding material ...

... I found this interesting tid-bit in Alpha Decay, Alpha detectors and identification:

quote:
However, if the alpha has enough energy to surmount this barrier then it will regain that energy as electrostatic repulsion once it gets outside the range of the attractive strong nuclear force. One important consequence of this is that all alpha emissions have at least ~5 MeV energy. Furthermore, half-life is inversely related to decay energy.
(bold for empHASis)

Very simply put, if you change the decay rate, you change the decay energy, and the diameter of the halo changes.

There should be no characteristic uranium halos with the unique energy of uranium alpha decay from fast decay.


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:
(from Gentry's website http://www.halos.com/)

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by anglagard, posted 02-10-2010 4:21 PM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2010 9:43 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 126 (546593)
02-11-2010 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by RAZD
02-10-2010 11:13 PM


Re: Dating Dirt
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2010 11:13 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 02-11-2010 11:28 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 56 of 126 (546597)
02-11-2010 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Buzsaw
02-11-2010 9:43 PM


Re: Dating Dirt
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 02-11-2010 9:43 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 9:04 AM Coyote has responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2620 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 57 of 126 (546600)
02-12-2010 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Buzsaw
02-09-2010 11:57 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Buzsaw writes:

ZenMonkey writes:

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?


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.

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Buzsaw, posted 02-09-2010 11:57 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 10:47 AM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 126 (546624)
02-12-2010 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Coyote
02-11-2010 11:28 PM


Re: Dating Dirt
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Coyote, posted 02-11-2010 11:28 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Coyote, posted 02-12-2010 10:57 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 75 by anglagard, posted 02-13-2010 1:59 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 126 (546636)
02-12-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by ZenMonkey
02-12-2010 12:35 AM


Re: Dating dirt
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-12-2010 12:35 AM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 02-12-2010 11:09 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 63 by JonF, posted 02-12-2010 12:04 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 64 by Rahvin, posted 02-12-2010 1:45 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 60 of 126 (546637)
02-12-2010 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Buzsaw
02-12-2010 9:04 AM


Re: Dating Dirt
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 9:04 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019