Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 6:20 AM
21 online now:
(21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,194 Year: 5,231/19,786 Month: 1,353/873 Week: 249/460 Day: 1/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Author Topic:   PRATT Party and Free for All
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14819
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 61 of 126 (546640)
02-12-2010 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Buzsaw
02-12-2010 10:47 AM


Re: Dating dirt
quote:

This Wiki site alludes to this relative to rates of atomic decay and it's effect on matter, as I understand it.

Did you actually read the article, Buz ?


A number of experiments have shown that decay rates of naturally-occurring radioisotopes are, to a high degree of precision, unaffected by (or, for the small number of nuclides exhibiting electron capture, only very slightly affected by, with changes of approximately 0.2% or less) external conditions such as temperature, pressure, the chemical environment and electric, magnetic or gravitational fields. Comparison of laboratory experiments over the last century, studies of the Oklo natural nuclear reactor, and astrophysical observations of the luminosity decays of distant supernovae (which occurred long ago as the light has taken a great deal of time to reach us), for example, strongly indicate that decay rates have been constant (at least to within the limitations of small experimental errors) as a function of time as well.

This clearly indicates that there is absolutely no reason to think that a big flood or it's aftermath should cause any significant change in radioactive decay rates.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 10:47 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4570
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 62 of 126 (546649)
02-12-2010 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
02-10-2010 10:07 AM


Re: Rates according to RATE
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:
quote:
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.

Well, they are flat-out wrong, and no-one with a slight acquaintance with radiometric dating would make such a false statement.

The vast majority of radiometric dates use methods for which the initial amount of daughter isotope is known from basic physics (e.g. no significant lead ever appears in a zircon at solidification, acknowledged by the RATE group1) or the method actually produces the amount of daughter product at solidification (isochron or Ar-Ar methods). Whether or not the system has been disturbed is also indicated by the vast majority of methods in use today, and some methods (U-Pb concordia-discordia, Ar-Ar) often produce a valid datge even if the system has been disturbed.

Sorry, Buz, your reference is crap. If you are actually interested in the reality of radiometric dating, Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.

--------------------

1HELIUM DIFFUSION RATES SUPPORT ACCELERATED NUCLEAR DECAY:

quote:
Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past [14, pp. 335-337]. We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that "old" radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth ó at todayís rates ó of nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead.

{emphasis in original}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 02-10-2010 10:07 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4570
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 63 of 126 (546650)
02-12-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Buzsaw
02-12-2010 10:47 AM


Re: Dating dirt
1) Don't atomic decay rates effect/change matter?

If decay rates were ever significantly different there would be traces. We have looked diligently for such traces. They aren't there.

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?

No.

3) Wouldn't matter/soil be affected after the flood relative to a change in the rate of atom decay?

I can't extract any meaning from that word salad.

4) Isn't the conventional model uniformitarian whereas the Buz/Biblical hypothesis is not?

I would say that the conventional model is based on conclusions from a mountain of evidence, whereas the Buz/Biblical hypothesis is based on wishful thinking and ignoring all the evidence. See:

The Constancy of Constants
The Constancy of Constants, Part 2


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 10:47 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1297 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 64 of 126 (546654)
02-12-2010 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Buzsaw
02-12-2010 10:47 AM


Re: Dating dirt
1) Don't atomic decay rates effect/change matter?

Decay changes matter, in that one element decays into another as it emits radiation.

The rate of decay is different from teh decay itself. Decay rates do not change. Ever. Period. There's a reason we use the term "constant."

Decay rates are a function of the half-life of a given element. Over the course of the half life, 50% of any given sample will decay. That half-life does not change.

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?

No. Just as decay rates are not affected by modern floods. You can take a bit of Uranium, keep it in a dry desert, submerged in the ocean, or in the vaccuum of space and it will still decay at exactly the same rate in each circumstance. So too with every other form of radioactive decay.

The amount of the radioactive substance is irrelevant. You could have 100 parts per million of C14, 1000 ppm, 1 ppm, or 100,000 ppm, and the half-life of C14 would not change at all.

You can take 100kg of Uranium or 100g of Uranium; after the half-life has passed (a few million years in the case of Uranium, as I recall), 50% of each sample will have decayed.

Yes, the amount of "decayed Uranium" changes based on how much Uranium is in the sample; but that's why we measure the rate of decay with half-lives, because that is the constant independent of all other variables. And the half-life is what we use to date samples.

3) Wouldn't matter/soil be affected after the flood relative to a change in the rate of atom decay?

Radioactive decay works at the same constant rate regardless of environmental conditions. Uranium in the Earth's molten mantle decays with the same half-life as Uranium in the vacuum of space. A flood will not change radioactive decay rates at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 10:47 AM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 4:14 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 126 (546669)
02-12-2010 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Rahvin
02-12-2010 1:45 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Rahvin writes:


Decay changes matter, in that one element decays into another as it emits radiation.

The rate of decay is different from teh decay itself. Decay rates do not change. Ever. Period. There's a reason we use the term "constant."

Hi Rahvin. Thanks. That makes sense. Make that:
1) Doesn't the amount of atomic decay rates affect/change matter?

2) Relative to carbon, wouldn't the amount of carbon 14 in the Buz-alleged preflood atmosphere have a determination in pre flood carbon dating?


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 64 by Rahvin, posted 02-12-2010 1:45 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Coyote, posted 02-12-2010 4:31 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 67 by Rahvin, posted 02-12-2010 6:08 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 66 of 126 (546670)
02-12-2010 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Buzsaw
02-12-2010 4:14 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Relative to carbon, wouldn't the amount of carbon 14 in the Buz-alleged preflood atmosphere have a determination in pre flood carbon dating?

The amount of C14 in the atmosphere does have an effect on the dates. This was noted and published on by De Vries (1958).

Since then there has been a calibration curve worked out to correct the dates for atmospheric fluctuations. The largest correction needed is on the order of 10%.

Using bristlecone pines from the White Mountains of southern California, they have a calibration curve worked out for about 12,500 years.

Using other materials and materials from other areas they have recently extended the calibration curve to nearly 50,000 years.

This takes care of the problem of atmospheric fluctuations.

I don't have the recent calibration yet, as it is just being published, but the 2004 calibration can be found at:

http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal04.htm

This page provides some of the datasets that went into the calibration curve.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 4:14 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 8:16 PM Coyote has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1297 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 67 of 126 (546674)
02-12-2010 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Buzsaw
02-12-2010 4:14 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Hi Rahvin. Thanks. That makes sense. Make that:
1) Doesn't the amount of atomic decay affect/change matter?

I'm not sure what you mean, Buz. If you're referring to the decay itself, then yes - the radioactive isotopes decay into their products (some of which are themselves radioisotopes and decay into their own products at their own half-life rate). If you start with a sample of Uranium-238 (the msot common isotope of Uranium), you'll eventually wind up with lead (though there are 18 intermediate elements in the decay chain, so it would take quite a while given Uranium's 4+ million year half-life).

Radiation does affect surrounding matter in different ways, as well. We use some radioactive decay to generate heat for space probe batteries, for instance (the Voyager probes generate electricity from the heat of radioactive decay, as their mission sends them too far from the Sun to use solar power). Radiation can be in the form of an emitted neutron, an alpha particle, etc. Alpha radiation won't pass through a sheet of paper or human skin; gamma radiation won't be stopped by less than a concrete wall or preferably lead.

But I'm not sure what effect you're talking about that may have relevance to dating. The only thing I can think of is the actual decay itself, where the C14 (or other radioisotope) is transmuted into anotehr element (Nitrogen in the case of C14) by the decay itself.

That change is exactly what makes radioisotope dating possible, of course. If you have a sample, and you find a proportion of 50% C14 and 50%N14 (the specific isotope that C14 decays into), then you know that one half-life has passed within a margin of error (which amounts to about 5700 years).

2) Relative to carbon, wouldn't the amount of carbon 14 in the Buz-alleged preflood atmosphere have a determination in pre flood carbon dating?

You're on to something Buz - atmospheric amounts of C14 do have a role in C14 dating. That's why we need to calibrate our dating methodologies. This is done in several ways - by measuring C14 quantities in ice cores, by matching C14 dating to independent, separate isotopes, by using geologic evidence like annual sedimentary layers, etc.

C14 dating is far more involved than just taking a sample, measuring the amount of C14, and coming up with a date. That's the basic mechanic, but as ever in science, we like to independently verify results so that we know with reasonable certainty that we're being accurate.

Remember, there are many ways to date samples, especially "dirt." When we try to get an accurate date for a sample, we try to find methodologies that independently arrive at similar results to verify accuracy. That way, if one of them is vastly different from the others, we know something's up.

In the case of the Flood, C14 isn't going to be wildly affected by suddenly inundating the Earth in water for a year. Modern floods don;t change the rate of decay. C14 isn't produced by life (it's just trapped in organic compounds because it's Carbon - it actually originates as CO2 in the atmosphere, where the Sun's rays cause the isotope C14 to form The CO2 containing C14 is then inhaled by plants, and later consumed by things that eat the plants, etc), so killing everything alive won't have an effect.

You can increase atmospheric C14 with massive wildfires (releasing the trapped carbon back into the atmosphere). You could decrease it by blocking out the Sun, meaning no new C14 is made and existing C14 continues to decay. But the proportion of C14 to its decay products would remain the same in either case, and the rate of decay would remain constant, letting us still date samples accurately (once we calibrate our testing for known atmospheric levels of C14, by using samples containing C14 that have also been dated using other methods - we can use ice cores for that, etc).

In all of these cases, C14 dating remains accurate.

C14 dating becomes inaccurate when date something too old. After around 50-60,000 years, any given sample will have completely decayed. The closest analogy would be that C14 dating is a ruler; you can accurately measure things less than a foot long, but longer than that and you'll need a yard stick.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 4:14 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 8:55 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 126 (546681)
02-12-2010 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Coyote
02-12-2010 4:31 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Coyote writes:

The amount of C14 in the atmosphere does have an effect on the dates. This was noted and published on by De Vries (1958).
Since then there has been a calibration curve worked out to correct the dates for atmospheric fluctuations. The largest correction needed is on the order of 10%.

Using bristlecone pines from the White Mountains of southern California, they have a calibration curve worked out for about 12,500 years.

Using other materials and materials from other areas they have recently extended the calibration curve to nearly 50,000 years.

This takes care of the problem of atmospheric fluctuations.

Hi Coyote. Does it really take care of it?

Logically, the amount of carbon 14 in an alleged Buz/Bible pre--flood atmosphere would affect pre-flood carbon dating whereas tree ring dating would would not be affected nearly as significantly by a changed atmosphere, being that there would be seasons in both atmospheres effecting tree rings, albeit less difference in global seasonal temperatures in a canopy atmosphere than we now have, post flood.

Am I making sense here to you?


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 66 by Coyote, posted 02-12-2010 4:31 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Coyote, posted 02-12-2010 8:55 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2010 12:39 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 69 of 126 (546684)
02-12-2010 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Buzsaw
02-12-2010 8:16 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Hi Coyote. Does it really take care of it?

Logically, the amount of carbon 14 in an alleged Buz/Bible pre--flood atmosphere would affect pre-flood carbon dating whereas tree ring dating would would not be affected nearly as significantly by a changed atmosphere, being that there would be seasons in both atmospheres effecting tree rings, albeit less difference in global seasonal temperatures in a canopy atmosphere than we now have, post flood.

Am I making sense here to you?

Sorry, but you are grasping at straws.

Trees such as the bristlecone pine add a growth ring each year. That ring encompasses the various seasons of that year no matter what they are. (That there is just one ring per year in these trees has been cross-checked against historic volcanic eruptions, which change the width of growth rings. This allows an independent verification that there is but one ring per year.)

During each year the tree absorbs carbon from the atmosphere, which it stores in the growth ring. When we analyze that ring thousands of years later we can compare the radiocarbon date we get from that ring with the known age of that ring. That tells us the effects of atmospheric fluctuation.

And, that information, in turn, lets us correct unknown samples based on known atmospheric concentrations of C14.

What you are trying to argue is that trees absorbed carbon differently pre-flood vs. post-flood.

You have no evidence for that, nor are you justified in trying to correct the radiocarbon calibration curve based on a mythical event! There was no flood, and there was no canopy. You would have to document those events before you could use them in such a manner, and that's the problem--the global flood, and the canopy, have never been shown to be anything other than a myth.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 8:16 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 9:07 PM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 84 by Apothecus, posted 02-13-2010 9:20 PM Coyote has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 126 (546685)
02-12-2010 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Rahvin
02-12-2010 6:08 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Rahvin writes:

I'm not sure what you mean, Buz. If you're referring to the decay itself, then yes - the radioactive isotopes decay into their products (some of which are themselves radioisotopes and decay into their own products at their own half-life rate). If you start with a sample of Uranium-238 (the msot common isotope of Uranium), you'll eventually wind up with lead (though there are 18 intermediate elements in the decay chain, so it would take quite a while given Uranium's 4+ million year half-life).

Radiation does affect surrounding matter in different ways, as well. We use some radioactive decay to generate heat for space probe batteries, for instance (the Voyager probes generate electricity from the heat of radioactive decay, as their mission sends them too far from the Sun to use solar power). Radiation can be in the form of an emitted neutron, an alpha particle, etc. Alpha radiation won't pass through a sheet of paper or human skin; gamma radiation won't be stopped by less than a concrete wall or preferably lead.

But I'm not sure what effect you're talking about that may have relevance to dating. The only thing I can think of is the actual decay itself, where the C14 (or other radioisotope) is transmuted into anotehr element (Nitrogen in the case of C14) by the decay itself.

That change is exactly what makes radioisotope dating possible, of course. If you have a sample, and you find a proportion of 50% C14 and 50%N14 (the specific isotope that C14 decays into), then you know that one half-life has passed within a margin of error (which amounts to about 5700 years).

I think I understand this sufficiently for the purpose of this discussion. I am, for sure, alluding to the atom decay itself rather than the rate of decay. I used the wrong terminology a couple of posts back, throwing some into a tizzy. Anyhow, we need a little light and some spirited heckling and lively routiness here in the freeforall to hype it up a bit (as Bus sips his glass of cheap nevertheless good upstate NY red wine).

Rahvin writes:

Buz writes:

2) Relative to carbon, wouldn't the amount of carbon 14 in the Buz-alleged preflood atmosphere have a determination in pre flood carbon dating?

You're on to something Buz - atmospheric amounts of C14 do have a role in C14 dating. That's why we need to calibrate our dating methodologies. This is done in several ways - by measuring C14 quantities in ice cores, by matching C14 dating to independent, separate isotopes, by using geologic evidence like annual sedimentary layers, etc.

C14 dating is far more involved than just taking a sample, measuring the amount of C14, and coming up with a date. That's the basic mechanic, but as ever in science, we like to independently verify results so that we know with reasonable certainty that we're being accurate.

Remember, there are many ways to date samples, especially "dirt." When we try to get an accurate date for a sample, we try to find methodologies that independently arrive at similar results to verify accuracy. That way, if one of them is vastly different from the others, we know something's up.

In the case of the Flood, C14 isn't going to be wildly affected by suddenly inundating the Earth in water for a year. Modern floods don;t change the rate of decay. C14 isn't produced by life (it's just trapped in organic compounds because it's Carbon - it actually originates as CO2 in the atmosphere, where the Sun's rays cause the isotope C14 to form The CO2 containing C14 is then inhaled by plants, and later consumed by things that eat the plants, etc), so killing everything alive won't have an effect.

Perhaps you misunderstood my reason for the flood/carbon dating connection. It was not the flood perse, but the pre-flood canopy atmosphere which, imo, should affect the dating methology. The vaporized water in the atmosphere relatively suddenly became condensed liquid, leaving relatively little in the atmosphere to protect the planet from direct sun rays, thus diminishing the quality of life on the planet and effecting the mother carbon 14/daughter nitrogen atom decay.


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 67 by Rahvin, posted 02-12-2010 6:08 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by ZenMonkey, posted 02-13-2010 12:01 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 126 (546686)
02-12-2010 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Coyote
02-12-2010 8:55 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Thanks, Coyote. This is getting interesting. I'll need some time to mull this over befoe responding.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Coyote, posted 02-12-2010 8:55 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 2621 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 72 of 126 (546706)
02-13-2010 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Buzsaw
02-12-2010 8:55 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Buzsaw writes:

Perhaps you misunderstood my reason for the flood/carbon dating connection. It was not the flood perse, but the pre-flood canopy atmosphere which, imo, should affect the dating methology. The vaporized water in the atmosphere relatively suddenly became condensed liquid, leaving relatively little in the atmosphere to protect the planet from direct sun rays, thus diminishing the quality of life on the planet and effecting the mother carbon 14/daughter nitrogen atom decay.

Buz, you're still making up made-up things.

There is no evidence at all of any global change in the time period you're referring to, and no evidence of any sort of change of the magnitude you're positing at any point that I can think of. The only evidence of a "vapor canopy" is that you want there to be one. There's no mechanism for suspending water like that in the air, nor is there any physical evidence of the sort of climate change you're describing. (I at least give you credit for not proposing the Kent Hovind model of a giant ice shell surrounding the planet.)

Here's an analogy, Buz. Say I want to speculate that most of the Grimm fairy tales were originally found in the Old Testament. Now, of course they're not. There's no evidence in any manuscript of stories about wolves eating grandmothers or girls with long blond hair living in the tops of towers. And yet, without actually looking anything up or providing anything verifiable to support my claim, I instead just keep insisting that it's possible that they really are there. Maybe all I'm basing my case on is that I remember seeing a book of Bible stories when I was little that looked a lot like a book of fairy tales. And in the meantime I refuse to actually go look at a Bible to see for myself that my speculations are simply wrong.

So you can see how frustrating it is at times when you hold on to your speculations and interpretations of Scripture when they are clearly contradicted by facts, facts that aren't so terribly hard to understand and which you can go read about from innumerable reliable sources. It would be insulting of me to disregard your own considerable understanding of the Bible and insist on my own mistaken views. I respect the amount of effort you've put into reading and learning the Bible in depth, and I wouldn't contradict you on a Biblical point unless I could point to chapter and verse to support my claims. Likewise, you may wish to consider that people who have put great effort into becoming expert in or at least knowledgeable about some of the fields in which you're making unsupported assertions really do know what they're talking about.

If your God really does exist, then why would He mislead you into believing things that are not true?


I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 8:55 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16094
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 73 of 126 (546708)
02-13-2010 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Buzsaw
02-12-2010 8:16 PM


Re: Dating dirt
Hi Coyote. Does it really take care of it?

Logically, the amount of carbon 14 in an alleged Buz/Bible pre--flood atmosphere would affect pre-flood carbon dating whereas tree ring dating would would not be affected nearly as significantly by a changed atmosphere, being that there would be seasons in both atmospheres effecting tree rings, albeit less difference in global seasonal temperatures in a canopy atmosphere than we now have, post flood.

Am I making sense here to you?

It makes sense, but it's an own goal.

Consider the following two methods of dating:

(a) Looking at raw uncalibrated carbon dates.

(b) Looking at tree ring growth.

Now, as Coyote said, these agree within 10%. So you need not only a magical process to mess with radiometric dating, but also a magical process (the same one or a different one) which messes with tree growth in such a way as to keep the two methods in close agreement with each other.

Now, radioactive decay and tree growth are two separate processes, of course, so there's no reason why they should both be put wrong in such a way as to still agree with one another.

Coinidence, you say? Well, now let's consider a third dating method.

Consider varves in glacier-fed lakes. We observe today that one varve is laid down in such lakes every year. So we can take a sediment core from such a lake, and unless something at some point in the past has been messing with the deposition of sediment in proglacial lakes, we can count down one year per varve, so that the 5,000th varve down was formed 5,000 years ago.

Now, here's the thing. The sediment in these lakes contains organic material, such as pollen. So we can carbon-date each varve as well as dating it just by counting. And guess what, the two methods are once again in good agreement.

So now we need another magical process, or the same one again, to screw with sedimentary deposition in glacial lakes in such a way as to keep it in lock-step with the way that tree-ring growth has been screwed with, which is in lock-step with the way that radioactive decay has been screwed with.

Coincidence ... ?

---

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose you have a digital watch, a pendulum clock, and a water-clock. The guy who sold them to you assured you that they were all guaranteed to be absolutely shockproof. Being skeptical, you test this by shaking them, subjecting them to heat, throwing them in the fire, hitting them with hammers, throwing them in the sea, firing them out of cannons ... and a day after you've done all this, they're still all telling the same time. Would you conclude, in the light of this fact, that they were all broken, but that coincidentally the three very different mechanisms had all, as a result of this rough treatment, malfunctioned so that they all still told the same time whenever you consulted them --- or would you conclude that they were all still working, and that the salesman had told you the truth?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 8:16 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by anglagard, posted 02-13-2010 1:19 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2010 7:56 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

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


Message 74 of 126 (546710)
02-13-2010 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dr Adequate
02-13-2010 12:39 AM


Re: Dating dirt
Dr Adequate writes:

Coincidence ... ?

Don't forget annual calcite accumulation in caves, annual layers in ice sheets, and annual isotope differentiation in confined aquifers and ....


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 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2010 12:39 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-13-2010 3:40 AM anglagard has responded

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


Message 75 of 126 (546712)
02-13-2010 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Buzsaw
02-12-2010 9:04 AM


Re: Dating Dirt
Buzsaw writes:

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.

The best place to look for layers of soil accumulation is not topsoil, considering how it is disturbed by not just wind but also by reworking due to the very prairie grass and its roots, it is of course in the most undisturbed of depositional environments, namely lake beds, where such depositions create what is known in the vernacular as 'varves.'

I find it rather strange that you would consider unconsolidated soil as universally uniformitarian while consolidated rock as somehow considered falsely layered due to a so-called assumption of 'uniformitarianism.'

Now of course sometimes regardless of the actions of wind or roots, the layering takes place. However this can only occur uninterrupted where the forces of adding to the dirt are greater than those that subtract from the dirt.

Most science, particularly the geosciences are after all based upon what is often referred to as common sense, such as that on top is younger than that on the bottom (discounting overthrusts) or that which is denser over time sinks below that which is less dense.

At any rate the best examples of uninterrupted deposition are naturally undisturbed lakebeds. If you have another perspective upon this common sense deduction of geology, I assure you we are all ears (or eyes).


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 58 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2010 9:04 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019