Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 139 of 373 (740174)
11-02-2014 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Colbard
11-02-2014 1:25 AM


Genuine science cannot be amoral without railroading itself.
So rock mechanics theories are 'railroaded' by being amoral?
Wow! Who knew?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Colbard, posted 11-02-2014 1:25 AM Colbard has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 165 of 373 (740662)
11-06-2014 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Colbard
11-05-2014 6:01 AM


There are principles of existence and or life that are up held by the laws of the land.
Murder, stealing, adultery, lying, coveting, disrespect for parents and authority, disrespect for life, property and the qualities of life. These violate life and therefor life could not have come forth without these protections.
C'mon, you're just making stuff up as you go, aren't you? Are you saying that bacteria, for instance, either have these values or are not alive?
Your post appears to be a bunch of utopian platitudes. Are you a 'new ager'? Have you tried crystal therapy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Colbard, posted 11-05-2014 6:01 AM Colbard has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 166 of 373 (740666)
11-06-2014 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by zaius137
11-05-2014 11:49 AM


Re: Science is evidence for God
Anyone can speculate about phenomena. It is not the evidence that is contestable (real evidence) it is the interpretation.
But there you are, contesting the validity of evidence by claim that some is not 'real' evidence...
For instance there is at least 300 cosmologies that provide adequate explanation for the existence of the universe without using dark energy or dark matter.
And I'm sure they all merit equal attention...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by zaius137, posted 11-05-2014 11:49 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by zaius137, posted 11-06-2014 9:20 PM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 199 of 373 (740962)
11-08-2014 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by zaius137
11-08-2014 1:35 PM


Re: Age of the universe
... but the assumption is that one ring equals one year (not certain) ...
How certain do you need to be?
Can you give us an idea of the total error in irregular ring growth in trees? Some statistics would be good to support your position.
... and dendrochronology also needs a accurate count of ring somewhat debatable.
Okay, show us the error. Give us some kind of support for you skepticism.
As a YEC I'm sure you are skeptical of the counting process. The numbers can get really big.
But my main question is, if you are so skeptical of annual ring growth and the ability of people to count them, do you apply the same degree of skepticism to your own dating methods? Are you sure that a count of generations in the Bible is accurate? Are you certain that all generations are included?
Remember, it isn't actually written in the Bible that the earth was formed 6ky ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by zaius137, posted 11-08-2014 1:35 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 228 of 373 (741093)
11-09-2014 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by zaius137
11-09-2014 12:28 AM


Re: The hand of God
Let us slow down by attacking one problem at a time, ...
We've seen this argment before. All it means is that YECs get to ignore some of the evidence when it is unpleasant.
... an ad-hoc monster like BB must be examined a piece at a time in the light of logic and fact.
But what you suggest by necessarily results in ad hoc explanations.
Patients is required, ...
I've often felt that YECs should be patients at some institution or another.
this forum has some very good minds, let us consider all the points of view.
And dispose of the absurd ones.
Wait, that's been done. Several times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by zaius137, posted 11-09-2014 12:28 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 274 of 373 (741393)
11-12-2014 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by zaius137
11-12-2014 1:22 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
Do you have a citation, decay flux is usually inside the error figure. I know there is evidence for radioactive decay variability (let us talk)
And exactly where does this variability occur?
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box. Someone got a bit spastic with the space key.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 1:22 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 281 of 373 (741496)
11-12-2014 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by zaius137
11-12-2014 4:01 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
I believe that measured decay error variance may be because some elements decay rate changes with times of the year (maybe rotation of the sun’s core).
Here are some links
From your reference, Republikslot: Daftar 10 Situs Judi Slot Dan Casino Online Terbaik
Recent results suggest the possibility that decay rates might have a weak dependence on environmental factors. It has been suggested that measurements of decay rates of silicon-32, manganese-54, and radium-226 exhibit small seasonal variations (of the order of 0.1%),[21][22][23] ...(bold added)
So, in the case of 14C, if the rate varies by 0.1%, that would mean that the half-life would vary by 5.7 years in 5700 years.
And that, of course, would be if the variation from the accepted half-life was continuous, which does not appear to be the case.
Now, as I look up the C14 half life, I get this value: 5730+/-40 years.
(Carbon-14 - Wikipedia)
Note the error bounds, which, if I understand correctly, would include more than the 0.1% variability that we are talking about here.
So, what is the significance of this effect, in the context of a 6ky old earth?
Weird, eh?
I will defer to any physicists here who can correct me on this.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 4:01 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by JonF, posted 11-12-2014 6:39 PM edge has not replied
 Message 286 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 9:07 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 299 of 373 (741523)
11-13-2014 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by zaius137
11-12-2014 9:07 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
I did not claim that 14C varied significantly as measured today. If 14C is in diamonds or coal they can not be as old as claimed or the decay rate has varied over time in a significant way. One or the other.
So, let me get this straight. You want to produce an extreme discrepancy with an insignificant process.
Do I have that right?
If radio active decay varied at all, even .01% (not just error in measurement) then the principle of radio decay invariance is nonsense.
Oh, I have little doubt that rates vary, but for me the question is how much? We also know that the speed of light varies depending on the medium, but it still makes sense to call it constant by referring to the speed of light in a vacuum.
But maybe you prefer Dr. Bertshe the MD (Sorry he is a physicist (Kirk)) tell you that a geophysicist is wrong.
Well, in this case the geophysicist is wrong and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 9:07 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 2:36 AM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 314 of 373 (741575)
11-13-2014 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by zaius137
11-13-2014 2:36 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
That insignificant process, as you put it, changes the entire paradigm. Not by magnitude but by precedence.
I have already agreed that constants may not be absolute, but your line of thinking is going to take you places you don't want to go. Do you realize that all measurements have limits to precision? That's just the way it is in the real world. I can accept that the measured half-life of C14 has a +/- precision of 40 years. Does that really turn a 60ky old sample into a 6ky old sample?
You are living in a fantasy world. I want a concrete explanation here. What makes the discrepancy significant in the sense of the age of the earth?
The problem is that you are an absolutist, particularly when it comes to other people's assumptions and measurements. You don't question your own measurements or assumptions, do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 2:36 AM zaius137 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by NoNukes, posted 11-13-2014 11:43 AM edge has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 326 of 373 (741659)
11-13-2014 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by zaius137
11-13-2014 12:07 PM


Re: C-14 in coal and oil
Unfortunately, there is not much science coming out of coal mines these days.
Not sure what you mean by this, but there are probably some who would disagree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 12:07 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 327 of 373 (741660)
11-13-2014 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by zaius137
11-13-2014 11:58 AM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
now all you have to do is show me where C-14 was predicted to be in diamonds before it was discovered in diamonds.
Citation please
Why would anyone have predicted it? The point is that there is an explanation for unexpected C14.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 11:58 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 328 of 373 (741663)
11-13-2014 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by zaius137
11-13-2014 11:58 AM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
Citation please
Unless you want to claim God put it there
Heh, heh...
That sounds about right.
All we have to say is 'God didit' and we are relieved of the burden of supplying support.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 11:58 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 346 of 373 (741738)
11-14-2014 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 343 by zaius137
11-14-2014 3:23 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- nothing to do with age of universe
It is clear that delta’s in decay rates are not the same across the board.
So, let me get this straight.
If the decay rates vary independently by isotope then the consilience of dating methods is purely coincidental.
Right?
Why some isotopes are affected in different ways by time of year or sun distance is unknown. The mechanism is still uncertain.
So, you have uncertainty in your evidence.
Why is it, then, that when we acknowledge uncertainty in measurements, it means that you can say we are just plain wrong?
Seems like a bit of a double standard, no?
But the data is clear, Atomic decay rates are not as stable as once thought.
And it is equally clear that any variation (that we actually know about) is insignificant with regard to the difference between our age of the earth and yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by zaius137, posted 11-14-2014 3:23 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 347 of 373 (741740)
11-14-2014 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 345 by zaius137
11-14-2014 4:43 AM


Re: sn 1987A -- nothing to do with age of universe
What I have said, over and over, is that the variance seems to be dependent on the element, distance from sun or solar flare (mechanisms are not yet known).
So, you want us abandon every measurement technique that we know of, based on your concept of 'mechanisms not yet known'?
Then it's true that YECs want us to base our understanding of the universe on what we don't know rather than what we do know.
That sounds like a real winning argument.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by zaius137, posted 11-14-2014 4:43 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 352 of 373 (741770)
11-14-2014 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by JonF
11-14-2014 12:12 PM


Re: C-14 in diamonds isn't native.
I kind of like the groundwater hypothesis too, especially in the case when dissolved 234U decays to insoluble 230Th. Do you happen to know if the 230Th and its daughter elements produce neutrons that could drive the 14N-14C transition?
I believe that radon is in both decay chains and does produce the appropriate neutron energies.
I like also the fact that dissolved uranium can be fixed in coal because of the ambient reducing environment. Add to that the fact that groundwater residence time have been calculated at on the order of 10s of thousands of years in some cases, and we are looking at a robust explanation for C14 in coal.
ETA: And yes in some of the coal seams I've seen in Wyoming, the coal itslef is the main aquifer, even more than some of the sandstones.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by JonF, posted 11-14-2014 12:12 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by jar, posted 11-14-2014 12:43 PM edge 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