NCSE doesn't do that. Nobody, not even creationist organizations, is going to put any more money into that cluster coitus. There was a RATE 3 proposal but the no creationist organization would fund it.
Well, nobody but a creationist makes a distinction between macro and micro. There's no reason to.
Some real scientists do make such a distinction; macro is at or above species level, micro is below. It's not widely used. Of course there are plenty of examples of macroevolution by that definition. That's why those who question whether we have observed macroevolution get the "you must be a creationist" treatment, because those who do are without exception creationists.
Creationists seldom if ever admit it, but to them microevolution is observed evolution and macroevolution is that which takes to long for it to be observed (ignoring, of course, the many examples of such in the fossil record). Yet. As more evidence comes up the boundary shifts.
Creationists seldom if ever admit it, but to them microevolution is observed evolution and macroevolution is that which takes to long for it to be observed
Personally, I don't think this is all that bad of a definition, at least for debates as of the EvC type. It distinguishes our level of certainty and the type of evidence we have that causes us to come to a particular conclusion.
I'd ask that the end be "observed directly" or some such. Plenty of macroevolution under any definition has been observed, just not in real time.
Many creationists will criticize radiometric dating techniques because they rely on an assumption that the daughter product can not move in or out of the rock. Of course, this assumption has been tested inside and out for the main dating methods that geologists use. What is curious is that when the creationists try to devise a methodology, they picked a daughter product that does move in and out of the rock, and does so in a temperature dependent manner.
A little expansion: one major reason creationists focus on K-Ar is because it is a "simple accumulation" method. If there was any daughter product present at solidification or if the system has been disturbed it will produce the wrong answer with no indication from the method of that error. Of course scientists have characterized the rocks in which these issues are likely or unlikely, and Dalrymple showed (in 40Ar-36Ar Analyses of Historic Lava Flows) that the presence of 40Ar at solidification is rare in lava that isn't in the class that is known to have "excess Ar".
The most widely used methods, Ar-Ar and U-Pb and isochrons are "age-diagnostic" and, if they produce an age, they also produce a diagnosis of the validity of that age. Some can even produce a valid age if there was loss or gain of relevant material or there was daughter product present at solidification.
The age-diagnostic Ar-Ar method is applicable to any situation where K-Ar is applicable. (Ar-Ar has come down significantly in price and that's one reason whey K-Ar is so little used today.) There's absolutely no excuse for "creation scientists" to run tests on material with known issues using K-Ar when Ar-Ar or something else is obviously the method of choice.
EvC forum???? Hmmm... I was expecting real scientists that are comfortable hearing there might be new information we can learn from.
We are comfortable hearing that there might be new information. You haven't presented any and there's no reason for us to suspect that there is any. I am somewhat of an expert on radiometric dating, the RATE group work, and creationist misrepresentations and fraud in radiometric dating.
I'd love to see some new information. Pony some up.
Try reading their findings from THEM, as opposed to reading those that simply contradict them.
I have read the RATE I and RATE II books. I've also read all the YEC "papers" that I know of on radiometric dating.
The point is there was interesting data that came from their work
Yes there was. It's been thoroughly analyzed and their conclusions have been rejected for objective and widely promulgated reasons.
Many here are spring loaded to anything that might go against what they learned in school.
No, we're just tired of the same ol' same ol' ignorant creationist claims. You are one of many we've seen over the years. You obviously have no knowledge of the subject, you're just regurgitating YEC website errors. I've learned a lot since I left school many many moons ago, and I'm continuing to learn. If you can produce some new information let's see it.
If you get so offended about studies that might change things as we know them, you are NOT a scientist. You are simply a fundamentalist.
I'm not offended by the RATE studies in general (although I am offended by Humphreys' lying to hire Farley to do the zircon diffusivity analyses). I am offended by some other obvious YEC dating frauds. I am also offended by ignorant YECs who know nothing more than parroting YEC claims. E.g. you.
For those interested in continuing this topic, please post. As fort the rest, feel free to continue your bashing elsewhere. It simply takes away form your credibility when you do it
As I wrote in my first reply to you. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. I've answered the few questions you've asked with summaries and references. You've resorted to ad hominem and bashing in response. Matthew 7:5.
Do you have any interest in learning about radiometric dating or discussing what you know? Then start doing so.
RATE ever provide actual, positive evidence for a young earth?
The did provide evidence which they interpreted as being evidence for a young Earth. Some of it was obviously (to the knowedgeable) generated specifically to point to that conclusion without making it obvious (to the hoi-polloi) how the process had been manipulated. E.g. their isochron results. Some of it could be interpreted as evidence for a young Earth but could equally well be interpreted as evidence for an old Earth by one who understands the geology and diffusion. E.g. the zircon results. Finally, some of it may be fraudulent; there's some evidence that the three data points on which Humphreys hangs his hat are invalid because it's below the equipment detection range and Humphreys has been asked to release the lab report and has refused (he did release an earlier report from the same lab without being asked). Not enough to be fully compelling, but enough to raise a question.
(Dr. Farley, the lab operator, is so pissed that Humphreys deceived him as to what he was being hired for that he won't say anything about it to anyone. Pity).
Instead of saying, "they are wrong" can someone with UNDERSTAND and EXPERIENCE in this fields explain how their research was flawed
I had nice long post composed to explain some of the basics and hit some wrong key and the browser closed. Good thing I have a spare keyboard.
This is a discussion board, not a tutorial-on-demand site. Your questions have been answered by people with understanding and experience and you haven't bothered to read them, and you've been given links to those explanations. Why should e\we reinvent the wheel? I have read all the available creationist and mainstream literature on the subject and you've not lifted a finger to read the easily available mainstream explanations.
The explanations are long and many, and involve pictures and graphs and (some) equations. It is a significant effort to condense those explanations and maintain accuracy. Why should we make that effort for someone too lazy to click and read a link?
Do your homework and then we'll be glad to explain specific questions and issues you may have, and discuss the situation in general.
You need a lot more knowledge before you will be able to ask meaningful questions.
Scientists prepare and analyze the contents of their samples. No noble gas is radioactive under any conditions. It is not possible to identify from what isotope a decay particle came, but it is possible and easy and always done to prepare samples containing a significant amount of only one isotope.
Constancy of radioactive decay rates under terrestrial conditions is a conclusion, not an assumption. There are strong theoretical reasons to believe that, and thousands of experiments that demonstrate it. And the repercussions of any variation in decay rates would be extremely widespread, as physicist Steve Carlip pointed out in The Constancy of Constants and The Constancy of Constants, Part 2.
There has been no demonstration or theoretical prediction of any variation in radioactive decay rates significant enough to significantly decrease the mainstream age of the Earth. There were some demonstrations of significantly accelerated decay rates at temperatures that would have vaporized the Earth had it been that hot.
Consilience is another serious problem for claims of inconstant decay rates. Radioactive decay is an "umbrella term" for widely different processes. The isotopes used in radiometric dating decay by three very different processes, and there are subdivisions of these processes. But given the vast amount of consilient dates obtained by different methods using isotopes that decay in different ways, any process that changes decay rates would have to change all the varieties in exactly the same way, and nobody's ever come up with any hypothesis about how that could happen. We do have lots of experiments and theoretical analysis that shows it won't happen.
And, of course, if there was significant accelerated decay that brought the tens of thousands of consilient results into line with a YEC time frame, there would be subtle signs of it. Such as a melted Earth and all life killed twice over by heat and radiation. Perhaps with the exception of a few thermophilic bacteria. See Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay
I assume you are familiar with the recent Purdue University and Israel Geological Survey studies?But what can be seen is that there is a negative relationship between speed of decay and penetration of the earth's magnetic field. Slight changes to penetration (flares/seasons/suns core) cause slight changes to decay rates.
Correlation is not necessarily causation. And the existence of the effect is in doubt.
If slight changes to penetration of cosmic particles cause slight changes to decay rates, and proportionately, then its obvious that a complete blockout of the penetration of cosmic particles would have a dramatic effect on decay rates.
That's a mighty big if. And whether a complete blockout is physically possible is also in doubt. Even if cosmic particles do cause slight proportional decay rate changes, extrapolating a linear relationship is neither obvious nor justified and isn't going to get you to the tremendous speedup required. And you run right into the heat and radiation problem, and there are many more. Plus, without checking the math, I bet that linear changes in decay rates would lead to massive lack of consilience between methods, which we do not observe.
I notice you didn't address the many observations we've made that rule out the possibility of significant changes in decay rates.
All 3 types of rocks, sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic have been known to form rapidly
Some sedimentary rocks under some conditions form fairly rapidly, but metamorphesis is another story.
You need evidence that all sedimentary or metamorphic rocks can form quickly and that they did form quickly under your assumed conditions. In detail. Don't forget the subaerial deposits such as the Coconino sandstone (and don't bother to claim it wasn't subaerial, we know all those ridiculous claims already). Oh, and the subaerial igneous deposits (lava, tuffs, ...) that are interleaved between the sedimentary layers.
Not holding my breath.
Please see my other posts for evidence that decay is not a constant.
Please demonstrate that decay of relevant isotopes would change so as to produce the observed consilience under the conditions you posit (not just handwaving). Include your explanation for the heat and radiation problem (then we can move on to other problems). Note that the RATE group (comprised of pretty much all the YE#Cs who understand radiometric dating but don't understand experimental procedures) couldn't talk themselves into less than 500 million year's worth of decay happening during Noye's Fludde.
I agree they have battled to link a cause to the effect,...
I.e. you have no reason to suppose you know the cause.
... however the effect remains absolutely real and observable.
That's far from universally accepted in the scientific community. But assuming for the sake of argument that it does happen, you're many many steps away from any significant effect on radiometric dating.
Neutron capture can slow decay by retaining the instability of the parent isotope, preventing its decay into a stable daughter isotope.
For some isotopes under a neutron flux that is not present at the surface of the Earth and I suspect would wipe out life on the surface. But it wouldn't affect all relevant isotopes, and it would not affect them appropriately. Especially 40K which decays by electron capture.
But I'll be glad to go over your math or critique your references.