Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 91 of 1498 (662533)
05-16-2012 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by ScottyDouglas
05-16-2012 3:11 AM


Tree dating: correlations validate the method.
Hi ScottyDouglas,
I missed your post while making mine (Message 88), but this is a good place to start.
I pretty much agree with the tree dating. except:
"This is already older than many YEC models (6,000 years for those using Archbishop Ussher's calculation of a starting date of 4004 BC). This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 8,000 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead."
Who says that trees died in the flood? and 4004 BC is suspect!
Again, it helps if you use the quote boxes to clearly identify your points from the points you are replying to:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
Revising your comment to include boxes it looks like this:
I pretty much agree with the tree dating. except:
This is already older than many YEC models (6,000 years for those using Archbishop Ussher's calculation of a starting date of 4004 BC). This also means that there was absolutely NO world wide flood (WWF) during those 8,000 years, as there would be no possible overlap of tree ring chronologies if there were some point at which ALL were dead.
Who says that trees died in the flood? ...
Curiously, trees buried by water for over a year die. There is also the common condition of fallen wood drifting away on water, rather than remaining where they fell. Or are you invoking magic to keep them alive and all in the same place?
remember that we are talking three different chronologies in three different places.
If you are going to be skeptical of this, then the onus is on you to show how such objective evidence would survive and continue to grow unaffected (no aberrant tree ring, for instance) by a world flood.
... and 4004 BC is suspect!
Of course it is -- every date provided by creationists is very suspect, and I have seen ages from 4k to 10k in different sources. Bishop Usher, though, is usually cited as an expert on these calculations (which are suspect because real dates are not identified anywhere I am aware of).
But there comes a point where you run out of time for a Young Earth concept, and this is the starting point: we know from the objective empirical evidence of the tree rings and the correlation between independent tree chronologies.
Are You suggesting that in 10,000 bc we had a ice age and the trees started growing after? Good theory. Because if you do not then it is hard to explain just why trees only have a shelf life of 12 to 4 thousand years.
Curiously, I am not suggesting any reason for the data to run back to those dates, just that the evidence takes me there.
I can ask why carbon dating is not used in all dating but I know. The same reason that yourr methods you do use have, it can not persisely predict over 100,000 years.
Actually the practical limit for 14C dating is ~50,000 years, but we will come to that later.
I qoute from your texts:
"assumptions made"
"measurement is then transformed by a mathematical formula based on radioactive decay into a theoretical "age," but this "age" is really just a mathematical scale for displaying the actual amount of carbon-14 in the sample." theoretical age? my point
We can come back to this when we get to 14C dating. For now I want you to concentrate on the tree ring chronologies in Message 88 I referred you to Message 2: Bristlecone Pines and Message 3: European Oaks to point out that there is a correlation between these three chronologies for climate and particular incidents and thus you need to explain why they result in the same dates to within 0.5% correlation.
When we add Adding German Pines to the Mix we see that there is a fourth tree ring chronology:
quote:
Tree rings (and other systems of independent measurements of actual age of items) are used to calibrate the Carbon 14 dating method to make it more accurate than it is uncalibrated. The scientists doing this are very concerned with the accuracy of the data.
NOTE: we are NOT discussing carbon 14 dating yet, just the evidence from tree-ring chronologies and the accuracy of the data. Some of this has already been discussed above, in regards to the two oak chronologies. Here we are concerned with the last of the tree-ring chronologies that we can fix to an absolute time frame.
... Note further that the absolute European (German & Irish) Oak chronologies were discussed above, and that the accuracy of those with the Bristlecone Pine chronology was found to have an error of ~0.5% and that the Bristlecone Pine was excluded to bring the error down - there was less error between the German Oak, the Irish Oak and the German Pine chronologies. The IntCal04 discussion doesn't give the breakdown on the actual ages of each chronology.
Note that the "Younger Dryas" - a period of significant climate change bigger than the "Little Ice Age" (and named for the pollen from the Dryas octopetala plant showing up in various sediments)(1) - now shows up in the tree-ring chronology, marked by the width of the rings.
What they are essentially doing with all these dendrochronologies is building an overall dendrochronology independant of genus or species. The method for matching elements of some species dendrochronologies is the same as it is for matching sample elements within species dendrochronologies: they match up the patterns of climate with annual rings. So we have the German Oak running to10,429 BP and the German Pine running from 9891 BP to 12,410 BP and it overlaps the German Oak for 538 years. We can again be {minimalist\parsimonious\generous} and say that the error in this date is 0.5% (to include the Bristlecone Pine) and the minimum age then is 12,410 BP - 0.5% + (2007-1950) = 12,405 years.
There is a closer correlation between the oak and the German pine chronologies than between the oak and the Bristlecone Pine, ie an error of less that 0.5%.
What this shows is that the method of making dendrochronologies is validated and that the method, when properly used, is highly accurate.
Thus we can have high confidence in a minimum age of the earth, and a period of time without a world wide flood that would disrupt the chronologies, of 12,410 years (5 years have passed since the thread was written).
When do you start to become uncomfortable in extending the known age of the earth as shown by the evidence?
Do you accept that the dendrochronologies are highly accurate AND that they show the earth is at least 12,410 years old?
If not, then what is your explanation for the correlations?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : corrected number of chronologies involved

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 87 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-16-2012 3:11 AM ScottyDouglas has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 92 of 1498 (662556)
05-16-2012 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by dwise1
05-16-2012 11:49 AM


solar cycles and 14C production
Hi Dwise1
According to my earlier reading a couple decades ago, fluctuations in the strength of the geo-magnetic field also affect the production of C-14 in the atmosphere. A few thousand years ago, the field was weaker (contrary to another common creationist claim) so there was more C-14 being produced. This caused radio-carbon dates from that time to falsely appear younger ...
Indeed, and this is clearly shown in the calibration curves, but there is another cycle that is of even more interest in terms of correlations:
quote:
Solar cycle - Wikipedia
The solar cycle (or solar magnetic activity cycle) has a period of about 11 years. The cycle is observed by counting the frequency and placement of sunspots visible on the Sun. Solar variation causes changes in space weather and to some degree weather and climate on Earth. It causes a periodic change in the amount of irradiation from the Sun that is experienced on Earth.
This results in a similar cycle pattern in the amount of 14C in the atmosphere, and is one of the reasons that C14 does not reach an equilibrium point in the atmosphere (another creationist pratt down the tubes ... ).
You can see this pattern in the calibration curves, causing the fine saw-tooth pattern:
There are other known period cycles that also have a similar effect, but the point of interest for the correlations, is that this is like a ticking clock with a fixed period of each tick, and they continue throughout the whole curve.
Enjoy.

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 90 by dwise1, posted 05-16-2012 11:49 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 93 of 1498 (663701)
05-26-2012 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-06-2007 4:40 PM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
Concerning the Dendrochronology (tree ring) references, doesn't that require atmospheric calibration? After all, tree rings can grow differently based on atmospheric content, so since we now know ancient earth's atmosphere was different, with oxygen levels 50% higher than today's levels, how can we be sure oxygen levels at the time did not result for error?
Concerning Message 4, varves are said to represent millions of years, yet Josh McDowell and Don Stewart pointed out cases in "Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity" where the evidence appears to indicate a much shorter time span. To quote from pg. 206 in the print version:
quote:
The Eocene Green River formation of Colorado and Wyoming contains a deposit of fine-grained shale with beautifully preserved fossil fish. Matthews says of this,
"Probably the best-known fossil-fish fauna is that of the Eocene Green River beds of southern Wyoming and northwestern Colorado. These strata contain large numbers of well-preserved bony fishes."
The Green River formation is a 'varved' or banded deposit. Over the 2,600 or so feet of the shale, there are six-and-one-half million bands. Each band is believed to have taken one year to deposit, which if true, would mean it took 6,500,000 years to deposit the entire thickness of the shale. At least, this is the usual interpretation of the Green River deposit.
Several features of the Green River tend to contradict the usual interpretation of slow deposition at the rate of one band per year. First, the fossil fish are pressed flat between the bands. Second, one can see the outline of the entire, fish, not just the bones. That means the flesh hadn't rotted at the time the fish was buried. Finally, the thickness of each band is such that it would be difficult for a fish to be preserved. The average thickness of a band is about 5 thousandths of an inch. In the specimen in this author's collection, the bands are approximately 1 millimeter (one thousandth of a mater or 4 hundredths of an inch) thick.
What do these facts mean? Well, it is practically impossible for the dead fish to have been preserved if it had been covered by only one millimeter of mud. If one places a dead fish on the bottom of an aquarium and covers him with one millimeter of mud, the fish will rot and float to the surface. Very little decay is seen in the fossil fish of the Green River beds.
Secondly, one millimeter of mud would not provide enough weight to press the fish as flat as they are seen. Thus the only logical explanation for the appearance of the Green River fish is that the entire weight of the formation was laid down rapidly. Only in this fashion could the fish be buried deeply enough to preserve them while also flattening them.
Reasons skeptics should consider Christianity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
It's on pages 205-207 online here:
http://joshmcdowellmedia.org/...ouldConsiderChristianity.pdf
This, though, is one clear case I know of where varves are assumed to indicate vast time spans under Gradualistic assumptions, yet evidence clearly indicates they were instantly fossilized. Otherwise, the flesh outlines wouldn't be visible, they wouldn't have been fossilized at all (depositional rates would be far too slow), there would be a thicker layer of mud, and the fish would not be pressed flat as they are.
Concerning the ice layers, they are trying to calibrate for atmospheric levels even though we now recognize oxygen levels resulted in such massive life of ages past because they were far higher:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...oxygen-animals-science
More Oxygen Could Make Giant Bugs | Live Science
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...730-giant-insects.html
Recently, we discovered fossilized raindrops show earth's atmosphere was much thicker as well.
Splat Science: Fossilized Raindrops Reveal Early Earth's Hazy Skies | Live Science
I guess I'm a little skeptical given the growing evidence that earth's atmosphere was far different, that they can reasonably assume it was the same as today's prior to such catastrophes.
Why are they so convinced the atmospheric calibration is reliable?
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : adding more detail on quoted material

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2007 4:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 7:58 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 94 of 1498 (663705)
05-26-2012 6:42 AM


Gradualism
Essentially, per my other reply here (point 9), the dating methodologies revolve around the assumptions of Uniformitarianism, Gradualism, that everything went at one rate - even though this assumption contradicts Microevolutionary Rates today and the evidence of stasis and lack of transitional forms that led to the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Furthermore, the theory of Uniformitarianism replaced the theory of Catastrophism, yet today we recognize Catastrophism was correct.
EvC Forum: Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution Any Takers?
Radiometric dating depends on Uniformitarianism as invented by Lyell. But Lyell recognized what would happen to his theory were Catastrophism shown correct, along with rapid speciation after catastrophes. He privately expressed concern to Darwin in 1844, stating:
quote:
"Better begin with this: If species really, after catastrophes, created in showers world over, my theory false."
The fear Lyell expressed has been shown well-founded. Today we recognize mass catastrophes did occur. We also can see from the fossil record that it is not consistent with Gradualism, which led to Punctuated Equilibrium. Yet scientists want to pick and choose, assuming "the present is the key to the past" concerning isotopic decay, under the presumptions of Uniformitarianism - even though it failed to pass the tests of falsifiability, and the original theory of Catastrophism has shown itself correct.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 7:14 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 95 of 1498 (663715)
05-26-2012 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 6:42 AM


Re: Gradualism
Essentially, per my other reply here (point 9), the dating methodologies revolve around the assumptions of Uniformitarianism, Gradualism, that everything went at one rate - even though this assumption contradicts Microevolutionary Rates today and the evidence of stasis and lack of transitional forms that led to the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.
Even supposing that that was true, which it isn't, what could that conceivably have to do with the constancy of decay rates, which are, y'know, something else?
It's like saying: "People think that mice are small. But this is contradicted by observing that elephants are big".
The evidence for constant decay rates, and the evidence for the size of mice, depends on the study of decay rates and mice respectively.
Radiometric dating depends on Uniformitarianism as invented by Lyell.
Don't be silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 6:42 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:27 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 97 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:33 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 96 of 1498 (663718)
05-26-2012 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2012 7:14 AM


Re: Gradualism
Even supposing that that was true, which it isn't, what could that conceivably have to do with the constancy of decay rates, which are, y'know, something else?
It's like saying: "People think that mice are small. But this is contradicted by observing that elephants are big".
The evidence for constant decay rates, and the evidence for the size of mice, depends on the study of decay rates and mice respectively.
The constancy of decay rates depends on the assumptions of Uniformitarianism, that slow, steady, and generally unaltered processes were at work. Scientists assume decay rates were constant for no other reason than that Uniformitarianism is their accepted theory. Is there any particularly good reason for it? Not really. We know isotopic decay rates can be altered, but Brent Dalrymple in "The Age of the Earth" argues that such alterations are rare and minimal. But ultimately we just don't really know. We don't have a time machine.
And the more we find out, the more the fossil record disagrees with a Gradualistic, Uniformitarianistic view. Oxygen levels were far different. Catastrophes did occur. There were no transitions indicative of Macroevolution, and if you start hypothesizing that evolution suddenly sped up per Punctuated Equilibrium, then you have to explain why you assume isotope decay rates couldn't have also sped up. Plus the new recognition mass catastrophes did result in ancient mass extinctions increasingly raises the question of why those catastrophes didn't affect the amounts of the initial daughter isotopes, atmospheric isotope levels, or isotopic decay rates - WHICH ALL HAD TO REMAIN CONSTANT OR PREDICTABLE TO REACH RADIOMETRIC DATING RESULTS.
Everything for Evolutionary Theory is pretty much built like a stack of cards on the presumptions of radiometric dating by this point, which in turn is based on Gradualism and Uniformitarianism. And radiometric dating requires assuming that decay rates were unaltered or else predictably calibrated over millions and billions of years. If the system wasn't closed with isotope levels changing, if the isotope decay rates altered in speed, if the atmospheric isotope levels were different from today's, you would get the results thrown off. And a mass catastrophe involving intense water or volcanism could do that. Forces within the earth like heat or magnetism might as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 7:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 7:34 AM Jzyehoshua has replied
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 8:02 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 97 of 1498 (663720)
05-26-2012 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2012 7:14 AM


Re: Gradualism
One I've never heard considered before is whether the electron shield that insulates isotope nuclei from decay could itself have grown in strength. Dalrymple in "The Age of the Earth", the section on Radiometric Dating, states this shield prevents all but extreme forces like nuclear reactions from altering nuclei. He assumes as such that the nuclei weren't substantially or commonly affected in decay over such long time spans as a result.
Trouble is, if the electron shield itself evolved, that whole theory goes right out the window. I suppose they won't consider the possibility, however, unless we somehow come across strong proof that this occurs. For me it remains a serious question mark as well though.
What really bugs me, frankly, is this is all being passed off as undeniable fact. Yet we still don't even know how radioactive decay works as a process, at least at the time of Dalrymple's book when he admitted it. There really hasn't been much understanding of the principles of radiometric dating and a lot of this stuff is just now being delved into and presented to the public. The investigation is still very much underway to prove this, in other words, and here they are trying to shout down opposing views as ignorant, like it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I can clearly see that's not the case at all.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 7:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 7:43 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 101 by Coragyps, posted 05-26-2012 7:49 AM Jzyehoshua has replied
 Message 105 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 8:04 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 98 of 1498 (663722)
05-26-2012 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 7:27 AM


Re: Gradualism
No. Belief in the constancy of decay rates is built on the evidence that decay rates are constant.
You make a lot of stuff up, don't you? Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that you recite stuff that other people have made up.
There were no transitions indicative of Macroevolution, and if you start hypothesizing that evolution suddenly sped up per Punctuated Equilibrium, then you have to explain why you assume isotope decay rates couldn't have also sped up.
"If you start hypothesizing that elephants are big, you have to explain why you assume that mice are small".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:27 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:44 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 99 of 1498 (663724)
05-26-2012 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 7:33 AM


Re: Gradualism
One I've never heard considered before is whether the electron shield that insulates isotope nuclei from decay could itself have grown in strength.
Perhaps as a first step you could find out what that would actually entail. Would it involve electrons increasing in mass? In charge? What changes would have to take place to make the "electron shield" stronger?
I suppose they won't consider the possibility, however, unless we somehow come across strong proof that this occurs.
Well yes. Random daydreams free of actual content and unsupported by evidence are of no significance.
There really hasn't been much understanding of the principles of radiometric dating ...
Speak for yourself.
... and a lot of this stuff is just now being delved into and presented to the public.
You should really stop making stuff up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:33 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 100 of 1498 (663725)
05-26-2012 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2012 7:34 AM


Re: Gradualism
No. Belief in the constancy of decay rates is built on the evidence that decay rates are constant.
What evidence do you think there is that decay rates are constant?
"If you start hypothesizing that elephants are big, you have to explain why you assume that mice are small".
A better quote would be, "If you start hypothesizing that elephants are big, you have to explain why you assume that SUVs are not big. You Evolutionists are assuming Evolutionary Rates could speed up under Punctuated Equilibrium, but don't want to accept that isotope decay rates could have sped up.
On the one hand you say the present is the key to the past and assume isotope decay rates were the same as today's. But on the other hand when today's rates are too fast to allow an ancient earth (which Microevolution rates are per here) you assume today's have sped up for some reason. And when the fossil record shows stasis and lack of transitions rather than gradual transitions, you assume evolution suddenly sped up in the past and didn't show up in the fossil record, per Punctuated Equilibrium.
You want to say one had to remain constant and say the other situations were variable, just whatever will make Evolutionary Theory work, in other words. To me it looks inconsistent.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 7:34 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 8:07 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 107 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 8:08 AM Jzyehoshua has replied
 Message 112 by Coyote, posted 05-26-2012 10:31 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 725 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 101 of 1498 (663728)
05-26-2012 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 7:33 AM


Re: Gradualism
[Dalrymple] states this shield prevents all but extreme forces like nuclear reactions from altering nuclei.
Uhhhh......"nuclear reactions" are what make nuclei decay. Electron capture and beta decay rates can be affected by things like stripping the electron shell off of an atom, but alpha decay (like in uranium dating) not so much. And I'm betting that your "shield" would affect the rates of alpha and beta processes in opposite directions, anyway.
Where are our physicists?
Edited by Coragyps, : fix punctuation

"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:33 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:57 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 102 of 1498 (663729)
05-26-2012 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Coragyps
05-26-2012 7:49 AM


Re: Gradualism
Uhhhh......"nuclear reactions" are what make nuclei decay. Electron capture and beta decay rates can be affected by things like stripping the electron shell off of an atom, but alpha decay (like in uranium dating) not so much. And I'm betting that your "shield" would affect the rates of alpha and beta processes in opposite directions, anyway.
Where are our physicists?
Dalrymple in "The Age of the Earth" says the following on pg. 87:
quote:
"There are two basis reasons why significant changes in rates of decay are not expected. First, the nuclei of atoms are extremely small and well insulated by their cloud of orbiting electrons. These electrons not only separate nuclei sufficiently that they cannot interact, they also provide a 'shield' that prevents ordinary chemical or physical factors from affecting the nucleus. Chemical activity in an atom, for example, occurs almost entirely among the outermost electrons and does not involve the nucleus at all. Likewise the 'compressibility' of a substance may result in slight changes in the configuration of electrons but has no effect on the nucleus.
Second, the energies involved in nuclear changes are 10^6 times greater than those involved in chemical activity and 10^4 to 10^5 times greater than the energies that bind the electrons to the nucleus. Chemical forces, which bind atoms together into molecules, are on the order of 1 electron-volt (eV), while the forces required to remove an electron from an atom are typically in the range of 10 to 100 eV. In contrast, the forces that hold nuclei together are on the order of 10^6 eV, and those that hold quarks, the elementary constituents of protons and neutrons together are on the order of 10^6 eV (Weisskopf, 1983:474). This is the reason why nuclear reactors and powerful particle accelerators are required to penetrate and make changes in atomic nuclei. Except in nuclear reactions, such energies are generally unavailable in natural processes such as those that form, change, and destroy rocks on the Earth and in the Solar System."
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Coragyps, posted 05-26-2012 7:49 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 05-26-2012 8:09 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 103 of 1498 (663730)
05-26-2012 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 6:25 AM


Re: Correlations Correlations Correlations
Hi Jzyehoshua
Concerning the Dendrochronology (tree ring) references, doesn't that require atmospheric calibration? After all, tree rings can grow differently based on atmospheric content, so since we now know ancient earth's atmosphere was different, with oxygen levels 50% higher than today's levels, how can we be sure oxygen levels at the time did not result for error?
No calibration required -- the difference between winter and summer cause the annual rings, and the different atmospheric conditions show up as different width rings. This is how the rings are correlated with climate as well as age.
Concerning Message 4, varves are said to represent millions of years, yet Josh McDowell and Don Stewart pointed out cases in "Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity" where the evidence appears to indicate a much shorter time span. To quote from pg. 206 in the print version:
In other words you have not read the posts or respond to them, rather you bring in a different opinion.
The issue is not whether you can challenge each type of evidence, but whether you can explain the correlations between them.
If you can't explain the correlations then all your other issues are irrelevant.
Concerning the ice layers, they are trying to calibrate for atmospheric levels even though we now recognize oxygen levels resulted in such massive life of ages past because they were far higher:
I guess I'm a little skeptical given the growing evidence that earth's atmosphere was far different, that they can reasonably assume it was the same as today's prior to such catastrophes.
Where do you think that evidence comes from ... making stuff up, or by looking at actual data of oxygen levels compared to age in deposits such as the ice cores?
Again the layers counted in the ice cores are based on winter vs summer deposits. The levels of oxygen in the layers provides evidence of correlations with other dating mechanisms.
Your challenge is to explain the correlations.
Enjoy.

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 93 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 6:25 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 104 of 1498 (663731)
05-26-2012 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 7:27 AM


Re: Gradualism: not the topic
Hi again Jzyehoshua
The constancy of decay rates depends on the assumptions of Uniformitarianism, ...
Please don't go off topic with more extraneous distractions.
You need to show how this affects the correlations, otherwise all you are doing is throwing sand against the wall to see what sticks.
Enjoy.

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 96 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:27 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 8:43 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 105 of 1498 (663732)
05-26-2012 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 7:33 AM


more off topic meandering
Hi again Jzyehoshua
One I've never heard considered before is whether the electron shield that insulates isotope nuclei from decay could itself have grown in strength. ....
And curiously this has nothing to do with the correlations in the dating in this thread.
Perhaps you should try Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?, as it seems you are unable to deal with the evidence for correlations here.
Enjoy

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 97 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 7:33 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024