Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 181 of 305 (712277)
12-01-2013 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by JonF
12-01-2013 9:59 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
JonF writes:
IIRC he's made no comment on the many counting measurements that have been produced, in the debate and other threads.
True, but unless he is ignoring them and pretending they don't exist he obviously rejected them or he would not continue arguing as he is. Maybe RAZD should present that evidence again and see if he can garner an actual comment one way or the other.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by JonF, posted 12-01-2013 9:59 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by NoNukes, posted 12-02-2013 4:22 AM Percy has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 305 (712283)
12-02-2013 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Atheos canadensis
12-01-2013 4:24 PM


And he still seems to be maintaining the fantasy that the various dendrochronologies match up as the result of similar weather patterns at widely disparate points around the world.
And he must also be claiming that by sheer coincidence, the patterns produce the same result as the sped up decay rates.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Atheos canadensis, posted 12-01-2013 4:24 PM Atheos canadensis has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 305 (712284)
12-02-2013 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Percy
12-01-2013 4:32 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
True, but unless he is ignoring them and pretending they don't exist he obviously rejected them or he would not continue arguing as he is.
I disagree. While mindspawn did not acknowledge his error concerning the measurement techniques of those long lived isotopes, he hasn't made new statements about them either. I would assume that those things aren't at issue anymore.
His current argument about the solar based variability of decay rates is completely orthogonal to the his original argument that the rates were manufactured by "evolutionary assumptions".
The strength of the current argument is that the effect, if it is real, is completely unexplained, which means that counter arguments and evidence that decay rates are not affected by magnetic fields, temperature, pressure, neutrinos etc. are irrelevant. Further, the difficulties in measuring long lived decay rates probably means that it is unlikely that anyone has probed the effect on U234 or Th230.
The weakness of the argument is the coincidence required to produce agreement with dendrochronology, the miniscule amount of the effect as measured, and the link of the effect to the calendar.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Percy, posted 12-01-2013 4:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 12-02-2013 7:07 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 185 by JonF, posted 12-02-2013 7:36 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 184 of 305 (712286)
12-02-2013 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by NoNukes
12-02-2013 4:22 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
Are you sure that Mindspawn now accepts that we know the half-life of 234U with acceptable accuracy? Poking around the thread, his last comment about 234U that I could find was Message 44. Unless there's a more recent one, I suspect he remains unconvinced.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by NoNukes, posted 12-02-2013 4:22 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by NoNukes, posted 12-02-2013 9:45 AM Percy has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 185 of 305 (712288)
12-02-2013 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by NoNukes
12-02-2013 4:22 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
While mindspawn did not acknowledge his error concerning the measurement techniques of those long lived isotopes, he hasn't made new statements about them either. I would assume that those things aren't at issue anymore.
I wouldn't bet the farm; that nature of assumption has failed too many times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by NoNukes, posted 12-02-2013 4:22 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Atheos canadensis
Member (Idle past 2997 days)
Posts: 141
Joined: 11-12-2013


Message 186 of 305 (712289)
12-02-2013 7:47 AM


So RAZD has refuted all of Mindspawn's objections to the dendrochronologies. He has shown that extra rings are identifiable as such my the cellular morphology, that trees are more likely to have missing rings than extra rings, that observations during recent times show that the WM BCPs are produce one ring per year and that dolomitic substrates retain enough moisture for the trees to continue growing during periods without rain. I think it would be a good idea for RAZD to make a quick, concise post summarizing the points the evidence that refutes Mindspawn's fantastical objections. With explicit focus on showing that the WM BCPs have been shown to produce only one annual ring in recent times, something Mindie keeps insisting ins't happening and hasn't been demonstrated.

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 187 of 305 (712290)
12-02-2013 8:12 AM


I find RAZD's combined graph very confusing and can't see how he derived it. I don't buy it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2013 9:08 AM JonF has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 188 of 305 (712291)
12-02-2013 8:50 AM


Evidence of Earth's Past Magnetic Field Strength
Mindspawn frequently claims past variations in the Earth's magnetic field strength as an explanation for huge variations in isotope half-life, as if our magnetic field could have been any value at all in the past. RAZD has so far limited himself to pointing out that magnetic fields as strong as the Earth's have no measurable effect on half-lives, and that variations in the degree of protection it affords from the solar wind is a tiny effect, but he hasn't yet pointed out that we do actually know the Earth's magnetic field strength over time.
So not only has Mindspawn failed to provide evidence of half-life effects of a magnitude even remotely near what he requires, the precondition he has laid down of an incredibly strong planetary magnetic field completely blocking out the solar wind has already been shown to have never happened.
As a sidenote, I remain mystified at how he can think that in the past all trees everywhere used to produce 10 times more growth rings per year than they do today, no matter where or in what climate, and they did this in complete synchrony with one another and with lake varves of all lakes, with coral growth in all oceans, with ice cores on all continents, with planetary magnetic field strengths, and with radiometric dating across many isotopes. And he apparently believes this possible in the complete absence of evidence that even one of these ever happened.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by JonF, posted 12-02-2013 9:04 AM Percy has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 189 of 305 (712293)
12-02-2013 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Percy
12-02-2013 8:50 AM


Re: Evidence of Earth's Past Magnetic Field Strength
RAZD has so far limited himself to pointing out that magnetic fields as strong as the Earth's have no measurable effect on half-lives
Tens of thousands of times as strong as the Earth's although he hasn't made a big deal out of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Percy, posted 12-02-2013 8:50 AM Percy has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 190 of 305 (712294)
12-02-2013 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by JonF
12-02-2013 8:12 AM


fig 7 shows respiration and photosynthesis versus moisture
fig 4 shows moisture versus time
take the values for moisture at the different time point and plot those on fig 7 to obtain what the respiration and photosynthesis would be for those times

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 187 by JonF, posted 12-02-2013 8:12 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Percy, posted 12-02-2013 9:32 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 191 of 305 (712297)
12-02-2013 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by RAZD
12-02-2013 9:08 AM


Guideline from Message 1:
RAZD writes:
  1. Great Debate participants -- Coyote [now RAZD] and Mindspawn -- should not post comments here, they have the GD thread for making their case.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2013 9:08 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 192 of 305 (712298)
12-02-2013 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Percy
12-02-2013 7:07 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
NoNukes writes:
While mindspawn did not acknowledge his error concerning the measurement techniques of those long lived isotopes, he hasn't made new statements about them either. I would assume that those things aren't at issue anymore.
Percy writes:
Are you sure that Mindspawn now accepts that we know the half-life of 234U with acceptable accuracy? Poking around the thread, his last comment about 234U that I could find was Message 44. Unless there's a more recent one, I suspect he remains unconvinced.
Well of course I cannot be completely certain. But there was a bit of back and forth that led up to mindspawn's final post and RAZD's rebuttal. During that back and forth, mindspawn gave up considerable ground from not accepting any relevant decay rate measurement based on 'evolutionary assumptions' such as secular equilibrium, to recognizing that U234 rate was proportional to U238's decday rate in the references cited to that point. RAZD's final rebuttal provided evidence of independent determinations of the decay constant and decay rate for U238 and for Th230.
In response, Mindspawn has not asked for further detail. And if necessary, independent determinations of the half life of U234 are available.
So, no I am not certain. But I don't believe we've seen mindspawn behave quite as badly as would be needed to re-argue the determination of the half lives of Th230 and U234. What we have seen instead is a completely new argument. If I see a post challenging the competence of scientists to measure such things I'll change my opinion.
Yes I would agree that the better part of the evidence suggests that his latest journey into mystery is off base. But in a previous discussion many of us expected that creationists would extrapolate Jenkins and Fischbach's work to postulate uncertainty with past decay rates. "See Solar flares affect radiometric decay rates?"
Well now mindspawn has done so. I think the balance of the evidence is that mindspawn is grasping at straws. But I think his point is worthy of a serious response.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Percy, posted 12-02-2013 7:07 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 12-02-2013 11:17 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 193 of 305 (712304)
12-02-2013 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by NoNukes
12-02-2013 9:45 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
NoNukes writes:
Well now mindspawn has done so. I think the balance of the evidence is that mindspawn is grasping at straws.
You deserve a nomination as master of understatement.
But I think his point is worthy of a serious response.
His point is that it is possible for an increase in the Earth's magnetic field strength to effectively insulate the planet from the solar wind to a degree that would permit a 6-order of magnitude increase in an effect currently measured at ±.001.
That's ridiculous. I think he deserves a serious response, but that's because we want to behave scientifically and not because he has raised any serious scientific questions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by NoNukes, posted 12-02-2013 9:45 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by NoNukes, posted 12-02-2013 12:29 PM Percy has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 194 of 305 (712305)
12-02-2013 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Coyote
12-01-2013 3:19 PM


It was a forgone conclusion that certain people would not 'get' the information presented, but I sure learned a lot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Coyote, posted 12-01-2013 3:19 PM Coyote has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 305 (712306)
12-02-2013 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Percy
12-02-2013 11:17 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
NoNukes writes:
Well now mindspawn has done so. I think the balance of the evidence is that mindspawn is grasping at straws.
Percy writes:
You deserve a nomination as master of understatement.
I think I can fairly point out that I have been, and continue to be as tough on mindspawn as anyone else here has been. I have on occasion acknowledged where mindspawn has played the game with some amount of fairness. He is, technically, in over his head.
His point is that it is possible for an increase in the Earth's magnetic field strength to effectively insulate the planet from the solar wind to a degree that would permit a 6-order of magnitude increase in an effect currently measured at .001.
I do see some ridiculous statements from mindspawn Message 75 regarding statistical physics and the role of randomness. Those silly statements should be picked on. What I do not see in that message is any attribution of the effect found by Fishbach (and a very few others) to tiny changes in the earth's magnetic field.
As I've noted before, the Fishbach effect, an effect which I am quite dubious is real, has no known cause. As best as I can tell, only a few scientist take the effect or Fishbach seriously. Neutrinos, which were Fisbach's guess, have been ruled out, as has a direct effect due to magnetism. Mindspawn has apparently withdrawn his past claim that the effect was due to neutrons.
So despite the fact that the argument is bogus, I don't see a clean rebuttal to his argument in the thread so far. Maybe RAZD can provoke one by citing references showing that decay rates are not affected by magnetism. JonF cited one here.
I think he deserves a serious response, but that's because we want to behave scientifically and not because he has raised any serious scientific questions
Maybe that's close enough to an agreement between the two of us. As I've suggested in the past, mindspawn does have some responsibility to vet his own arguments, and he absolutely will not do that.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.
Richard P. Feynman
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Percy, posted 12-02-2013 11:17 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Percy, posted 12-02-2013 1:07 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024