Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9030 total)
66 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (5 members, 61 visitors)
Newest Member: BodhitSLAVa
Post Volume: Total: 884,389 Year: 2,035/14,102 Month: 403/624 Week: 124/163 Day: 17/27 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does a flood ...
JonF
Member
Posts: 6173
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 31 of 206 (781344)
04-04-2016 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by starlite
04-03-2016 11:32 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
Where's the beef? You think what exactly? You think the daughter material could not have been there because it is now produced by decay?

In some cases, yes. In U-Pb dating of zircons, by far the most widely used method, no significant amount of initial lead is possible because zircon crystals strongly reject lead at solidification. There's plenty of uranium, because uranium fits right into the lattice substituting for zirconium. There's essentially no lead because lead doesn't fit chemically (wrong valence) or mechanically (too big).

This is recognized explicitly by the RATE group, comprised of the only fanatical YECs who really understand what's going on. From Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay:

quote:
Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past (Humphreys, 2000, pp. 335–337). We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that “old” radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth—at today’s rates—of nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead.

If there's significant lead in a zircon, it's the result of radioactive decay after solidification. The only way the dates can be significantly wrong is Accelerated Nuclear Decay (AND), and even the RATE group admits it has fatal flaws. Deal with it.

Oh, and one reason Ar-Ar has supplanted K-Ar is that it can often produce a valid date even it there was daughter product incorporated at solidification ("excess argon"). For example, when the Berkeley Geochronological Center dated the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 AD it had excess argon.

Many people who post here know this subject inside out. You do not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by starlite, posted 04-03-2016 11:32 PM starlite has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6173
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 32 of 206 (781345)
04-04-2016 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by starlite
04-04-2016 2:17 AM


Re: different causes for different layers?
The real question is why should we assume it was slow?

We don't assume. The laws of physics and chemistry don't allow for such rapid solidification, and the biology of plants does not allow such rapid growth.

Of course if all the laws of the Universe were totally different back then that would be a problem. You are welcome to produce evidence of this being so, and explain how life as we know it could exist under such conditions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 2:17 AM starlite has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6173
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 33 of 206 (781346)
04-04-2016 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by starlite
04-04-2016 2:19 AM


Re: different causes for different layers?
Actually the ratios are measured and the daughter parent ratio is used. You kidding? In the future I suggest you don't come off sounding like a know it all when you aren't.

In the future I suggest that you not post such ignorant drivel. Dr. A is correct. In 14C dating, the ratio of 14C to the 12C (which is not produced by radioactive decay) is measured. The daughter product of the decay of 14C is 14N, which is not measured and does not enter into the method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 2:19 AM starlite has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 34 of 206 (781347)
04-04-2016 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by starlite
04-03-2016 11:32 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
starlite writes:

Where's the beef? You think what exactly? You think the daughter material could not have been there because it is now produced by decay? Or..? Stay away from whatever taught you stuff.

Actually, my beef is that you've got no idea what radiocarbon dating involves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by starlite, posted 04-03-2016 11:32 PM starlite has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 1:42 PM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 35 of 206 (781349)
04-04-2016 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by starlite
04-03-2016 10:49 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
This one still is very, very funny.

The same evidence we have for any depositing. What evidence (besides fantasy radioactive decay based dating) is there for slow deposit?? The door swings both ways.

Is this guy really so uneducated or just not very bright?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by starlite, posted 04-03-2016 10:49 PM starlite has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by JonF, posted 04-04-2016 9:19 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6173
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 36 of 206 (781350)
04-04-2016 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Pressie
04-04-2016 8:58 AM


Re: different causes for different layers?
He's definitely solidly in the former camp, but he could be both. I always wonder at these clueless and ignorant YECs who charge in to set us all straight.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Pressie, posted 04-04-2016 8:58 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 1:41 PM JonF has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33281
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 37 of 206 (781351)
04-04-2016 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by starlite
04-03-2016 10:47 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
Since there never was a world-wide flood or either of the Biblical floods during the millions of years humans have exited I agree that it is silly. However some people do make such claims and thus this topic to allow those people to try to provide explanations.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by starlite, posted 04-03-2016 10:47 PM starlite has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 1:39 PM jar has responded

  
starlite
Member (Idle past 1753 days)
Posts: 83
Joined: 04-03-2016


Message 38 of 206 (781381)
04-04-2016 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
04-04-2016 2:31 AM


Re: different causes for different layers?
I consider so called flood geology to be absurd and pathetically weak. For someone to toss it out in this day and age as something that represents creation believers is silly. Maybe 20 years ago...

When I mentioned fast deposition I was not thinking about the flood at all. I was thinking about how layers may have been deposited in the 1600 years pre flood..which I consider rapid.

As for the fountains of the deep, they would have existed since the garden of Eden I assume. Water came up as a mist to water the earth it says. Now if we had some areas where there was a fount of the deep, and water came up each day, we may have had pools, lakes, ponds, seas even...ebbing and flowing and affecting deposition.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 04-04-2016 2:31 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 04-04-2016 1:43 PM starlite has responded
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-04-2016 10:02 PM starlite has responded

  
starlite
Member (Idle past 1753 days)
Posts: 83
Joined: 04-03-2016


Message 39 of 206 (781382)
04-04-2016 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
04-04-2016 9:34 AM


Re: different causes for different layers?
There never was millions of years and we might as well say there was no post of yours either. One cannot wave away the flood by making bellicose statements of faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 04-04-2016 9:34 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 04-04-2016 1:50 PM starlite has responded
 Message 52 by JonF, posted 04-04-2016 2:27 PM starlite has not yet responded

  
starlite
Member (Idle past 1753 days)
Posts: 83
Joined: 04-03-2016


Message 40 of 206 (781384)
04-04-2016 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by JonF
04-04-2016 9:19 AM


Re: different causes for different layers?
Since it is apparently OK to take a little pause and insult believers here, I guess I should join in and insult old age believers and God neutered science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by JonF, posted 04-04-2016 9:19 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2016 1:43 PM starlite has responded
 Message 55 by JonF, posted 04-04-2016 2:32 PM starlite has responded
 Message 57 by jar, posted 04-04-2016 2:36 PM starlite has responded

  
starlite
Member (Idle past 1753 days)
Posts: 83
Joined: 04-03-2016


Message 41 of 206 (781385)
04-04-2016 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Pressie
04-04-2016 8:52 AM


Re: different causes for different layers?
Tell us in your own words in a paragraph or so then. Show your stuff. Not sure why you think it is some secret, but hey break a leg.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Pressie, posted 04-04-2016 8:52 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by JonF, posted 04-04-2016 2:43 PM starlite has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8097
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 42 of 206 (781386)
04-04-2016 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by starlite
04-04-2016 1:41 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
Good grief, Schulz is turning in his grave.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 1:41 PM starlite has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 1:52 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 283 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 43 of 206 (781387)
04-04-2016 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by starlite
04-04-2016 1:37 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
...

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 1:37 PM starlite has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 1:53 PM Faith has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33281
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 44 of 206 (781393)
04-04-2016 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by starlite
04-04-2016 1:39 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
starlite writes:

There never was millions of years and we might as well say there was no post of yours either. One cannot wave away the flood by making bellicose statements of faith.

Of course there was not just millions but billions of years and ALL of the evidence supports that conclusion. It is not a statement of faith but rather a conclusion that can only be avoided by willful ignorance.

And the evidence that there has never been a world-wide flood during the millions of years that the primates like humans have been around is also conclusive and can only be avoided by willful ignorance.

But the purpose of this thread, once again, is to allow those people who think one of the Biblical Floods actually happened to explain some of the mechanics.

If you do not think the separation of the non-chordate layers from the chordate layers was caused by the flood then you have nothing to add at this time. When we arrive at a layer you might think related to the flood then you can explain the model, method, process, procedure or mechanism that produced that specific layer.

Understand though that nonsense like young earth will result in nothing except chuckles.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 1:39 PM starlite has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by starlite, posted 04-04-2016 2:05 PM jar has responded

  
starlite
Member (Idle past 1753 days)
Posts: 83
Joined: 04-03-2016


Message 45 of 206 (781396)
04-04-2016 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Tangle
04-04-2016 1:43 PM


Re: different causes for different layers?
ok

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Tangle, posted 04-04-2016 1:43 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021