Why not here (re: Joe's geomagnetism web page)

quote:

---

--The reason it isn't ad hoc is because it is invoked to explain ...

---

And that is the entire reason that it is invoked. It is, therefore, ad hoc.

quote:

---

...the distribution of radioisotopes in the earths crust,...

---

Exactly what does it tell us about the distribution of radioisotopes in the earth's crust?

quote:

---

... as well as a potential initiation for CPT.

---

Nope, it tells us nothing about the potential of CPT. You have to invoke even more ad hoc arguments in order to apply it to CPT.

quote:

---

I suspect that with further studies plenty more implications can also be found. For instance, all of the successive fossil forests at specimen ridge in Yellowstone could be spaced over a very short time scale (recalling from memory; with 200 year old trees, 200-500 years for pedogenic development required for the volcanic soil to be capable of sustain living trees, and 12 forests) with a lower limit of approximately 4800-8400 years for the entire lithofacies to be buried from bottom to top if they did indeed grow there. And so it would be expected that if accurate radioisotopic dates were taken from material in the specimen ridge forests the radioisotopic record should reflect this. However if we take into consideration accelerated radiosotopic decay in catastrophic geology 5000-8500 "years" of radioisotopic decay would be accomplished in no time:
Assuming a uniform increase with no variation during accelerated decay, and packing approximately 500 Myr of isotopic decay in 1 year means that every day there would be about 57,000 "years" of decay. This would mean that all these forests would have to be layed down in a couple hours if we found what would be expected in the uniformitarian scenario. So if the fossil forests were deposited in a scenario of catastrophic geology, than these fossil forests should reflect a much larger radioisotopic difference (several million years of decay).

---

What is your point here?

quote:

---

--I could also hypothesize similar expectations in various areas where we find mud cracks, coprolites (and their dessication cracks), nests, and other trace fossils which we know would have to take some time to form.

---

Are you saying that if something takes a long time then it really doesn't?

quote:

---

--Well I'm glad you realize the complexity of the issue.

---

The question is, do you?

quote:

---

--There are ways to tell if you have turned back the odometer. God may have 'fooled with isotopic decay' because it would result in what he wanted, a global catastrophe.

---

Just as there should be ways to tell if accelerated decay actually occurred. Just what was the process by which accelerated decay occurred according to you? In other words, 'why did decay accelerate?' And then decelerate? How many times did it accelerate? And why did it leave no trace of its happening? Why is the appearance of age necessary?The fact is that the only reason for accelerated decay is that you need it for CPT and as a tool to question radiometric dating. There is no evidence for it other than the fact that you need it.

quote:

---

Loud, how does one "know" what is "ad hoc" if one accepts a dual model approach to science C or E.

---

Let me think, now... Maybe because the definition fits? Besides, who accepts a dual model?

quote:

---

"And that is the entire reason that it is invoked. It is, therefore, ad hoc."

​

--You should have read the entire post.

---

I did. You have not given me a reason to come to any other conclusion. Accelerated decay's only purpose is to support the idea of short ages. There is no evidence that it ever happened. There is no other reason.

quote:

---

"Exactly what does it tell us about the distribution of radioisotopes in the earth's crust?"

​

--Shouldn't this be obvious to a geologist like yourself? Theres an entire field dedicated to it, radiogenic isotope geology. The distribution of isotopic ratio's in the crust is indicative of its age.

---

I guess it does not surprise me that you cannot answer my question, but perhaps you missed it. I repeat, 'what does it tell us about the distribution of radioisotopes in the earth's crust?' What exactly is the difference between that and the mainstream explanation?

quote:

---

"Nope, it tells us nothing about the potential of CPT. You have to invoke even more ad hoc arguments in order to apply it to CPT."

​

--How sure are you about that statement?

---

I am confident that a process that is unsupported by data cannot tell us anything about another process that is unsupported by data.

quote:

---

"What is your point here?"

​

--Well I tried to make it clear, I guess I failed. If the trees were transported, radioisotopic data should show that this occured over a long span of time. However if we consider uniformitarian geology, the radioisotopic data should give a very short age between the top and bottom of the specimen ridge lithofacies.

---

Possibly, but what is the point?

quote:

---

"Are you saying that if something takes a long time then it really doesn't?"

​

--No, I'm saying that if something takes some time to form (eg, dessication cracks in coprolites, mud cracks, etc.) than there would be a big difference from that expected in the radioisotopic data between uniformitarian and catastrophic geology.

---

Okay, but it DOES take time for these things to form, especially over and over and over again (sort of like this discussion). So what does that tell you? That it took a long time! In some cases we have plenty of radiometric evidence that this has occurred.

quote:

---

"Just as there should be ways to tell if accelerated decay actually occurred. Just what was the process by which accelerated decay occurred according to you? In other words, 'why did decay accelerate?' And then decelerate?"

​

--I don't know, ask God or something.

---

An artless attempt to weasle out of an explanation. Basically, you are saying that you cannot support your argument. I think God would say, "Use the brains I gave you."

quote:

---

Again I don't presume that accelerated decay was in any way a natural phenomena.

​

"How many times did it accelerate?"

​

--I don't know.

---

But you must have some guess, some evidence... This is the problem with ad hoc explanations, they lead you down a slippery slope of questions that have to be answered but can't be.

quote:

---

"And why did it leave no trace of its happening?"

​

--I think taht if accelerated decay occured, than catastrophic plate tectonics would have also.

---

Can I quote you on this the next time the old 'circular reasoning' argument comes up? This is the best example I've seen ages.

quote:

---

"Why is the appearance of age necessary?"

​

--Because, the radioisotopic data suggest that if we apply the current decay constant, the geologic column is very old. But if accelerated decay happened, this absolute "age" inference is incorrect.

---

In other words you need the 'appearance' of age because the world appears old. No other reason. This is an ad hoc explanation of the situation. Why not take the simpler explanation that has proven processes and results? In stead you take this concept that you do not understand, do not know the processes and have no evidence for! Now THAT is a miracle...

quote:

---

Because no one listens to each other,

---

Partly true. However, I have several migraine headaches from reading YEC posts that suggest you are generalizing.

quote:

---

No one cares to listen to each other,

---

I think not. Some of us care. Otherwise, there would be a lot more personal insults.

quote:

---

or

​

People just want to see thier post counts.

---

I almost never check my post count. It's too depressing.[This message has been edited by edge, 10-31-2003]