Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 3:55 PM
42 online now:
Diomedes, DrJones*, dwise1, kjsimons, Meddle, ringo, Tanypteryx (7 members, 35 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,497 Year: 3,534/19,786 Month: 529/1,087 Week: 119/212 Day: 35/14 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 305 (712544)
12-04-2013 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Pollux
12-04-2013 6:06 PM


Re: Comic relief
I was YEC for years but wondered why the scientists were so sure of long ages.

We watched foreveryoung work through some of those issues here. He still posts here occasionally.


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 240 by Pollux, posted 12-04-2013 6:06 PM Pollux has not yet responded

  
Pollux
Member
Posts: 240
Joined: 11-13-2011


Message 242 of 305 (712548)
12-05-2013 4:13 AM


Consilience
Does anyone know of any serious or halfway serious attempt by YECs, especially ICR etc, to explain the consilience of C14 with dendro and lake varves? Just saying trees can form more than one ring a year or varves aren't necessarily annual doesn't cut it. Also any explanation of why seamount chain dating is consistent with plate movement, supporting long age RM dating.
Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by JonF, posted 12-05-2013 7:07 AM Pollux has not yet responded
 Message 245 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 8:01 AM Pollux has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 4481
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 243 of 305 (712552)
12-05-2013 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Pollux
12-05-2013 4:13 AM


Re: Consilience
No, few if any YECs comprehend consilience and none address it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Pollux, posted 12-05-2013 4:13 AM Pollux has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 244 of 305 (712554)
12-05-2013 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by NoNukes
12-04-2013 5:47 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
NoNukes writes:

I keep forgetting how unusual it is for someone to admit to any mistake.

Yes, I've noticed that.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by NoNukes, posted 12-04-2013 5:47 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 8:20 AM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 305 (712556)
12-05-2013 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Pollux
12-05-2013 4:13 AM


Re: Consilience
Pollux writes:

Does anyone know of any serious or halfway serious attempt by YECs, especially ICR etc, to explain the consilience of C14 with dendro and lake varves?

I don't know the answer to your question.

On the other hand but here is an article from Institute of Creation Research that takes an approach to dendrochronology that is somewhat different than the one mindspawn takes. In essence they accept tree ring dates as accurate. Although they don't mention it, the consilience with tree ring dates with C-14 dating, at least within 10-12k years would not be a problem with their approach.

Of course this does mean giving up on a strict Ussher Chronology and a 6000 year old earth.

http://www.icr.org/article/381/

Irish Archbishop James Ussher (1581-1656) did serious work in Genesis chapters 5 and 11 to compile genealogical chronologies that were widely accepted in his day.8 Scientists such as Isaac Newton believed in Ussher's work, which was even published for years in the margins of the King James Version of the Bible, starting in 1701.9 Ussher placed the date of Noah's flood at 2350 B.C. and creation at 4004 B.C.10 Other Biblical scholars have researched dates for the flood ranging from 3398 B.C. to 2348 B.C.11 and creation between 3760 B.C. and 5555 B.C.8 Of course, "modern" evolutionists have held these dates up for ridicule, but the Bristlecone pine research may well verify them.

quote:
Dead wood, both on the trees and on the ground, have provided a tree-ring record going back to proposed dates of around 6800 B.C. or earlier.6,7This causes a little bit more problem for the Ussher dating, but it is not insurmountable.

Not insurmountable means some silly creationist blather, but that is only some kow-towing not to offend strict Ussherites.

quote:
However, some recent debate concerning the record of rings found in the dead wood has led to proposals of much older dates for the flood, and ultimately creation. Flood dates in the range of 10,000 to 15,000 years before present have been suggested,6 but it could be possible that the preserved dead wood grew in the period before the flood.

Letting the dates for creation and the Great Flood slip a bit does take some pressure off of having to oppose tree ring dates but there is still the issue of the consilience of radiometric dating within the tree ring dating. because radiometric dating methods extend well beyond any acceptable young earth chronology. ICR then results to the normal YEC clap trap.

quote:
Trees were likely created with tree-rings already in place. Rocks would likely have yielded old dates by the faulty radio-isotope methods in use today. Even man and animals did not appear as infants. This is known as the "Appearance of Age Theory.

I would note that this 'Last Thursdayism' explanation, while still very silly, does not require sped up nuclear decay rates, ten rings per year for every tree all in the world, and 11 salt water tides and retreats per year in lakes a mile or so from the ocean.

Mindspawn's position is fairly unique for a YEC. It is only the lip service he plays to being scientific that offers something for scientific minded people to debate about.

I think creationists play the science game because they like the idea of there being physical evidence for Biblical events but they still want to insist that real scientists are wrong. These contradictory needs are what creates the need for 'Creation Science'.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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 242 by Pollux, posted 12-05-2013 4:13 AM Pollux has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 305 (712559)
12-05-2013 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by Percy
12-05-2013 7:21 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
Yes, I've noticed that.

You haven't pointed to one of my mistakes. Do so and I'll admit being wrong.

On the other hand, I have pointed to some of yours. Did you make a mistake in your statement that each decay produces a particle that strikes another nucleus? I'm absolutely sure that we both know that statement is wrong.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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 244 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 7:21 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 8:41 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 247 of 305 (712563)
12-05-2013 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by NoNukes
12-05-2013 8:20 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
NoNukes writes:

Did you make a mistake in your statement that each decay produces a particle that strikes another nucleus?

You're like a rabid dog. What is it with you and this determination to corner me into admitting error?

No, I didn't say that. You have made a mistake, which I only point out for it's ironical effect and not because I care.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 8:20 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 9:37 AM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 305 (712573)
12-05-2013 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Percy
12-05-2013 8:41 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
Percy writes:

You're like a rabid dog.

Fair enough. I'll admit to being dogged in my approach to debating. I'm not sure there is anything wrong with that, but I know it doesn't win me any friends.

NoNukes writes:

Did you make a mistake in your statement that each decay produces a particle that strikes another nucleus?

Percy writes:

No, I didn't say that. You have made a mistake, which I only point out for it's ironical effect and not because I care.

I have to admit to a mistake here. In a previous post, I did provide a bad link to your post saying exactly that.

Nevertheless, I don't really understand how you can maintain that stance in the face of my having quoted you saying exactly that several times in this thread. You said exactly what I claim you said. Apparently you just did not mean what you said and you never bothered to correct me when i called you on it.

From Message 211. Bolding is mine.

Percy writes:

Hi NoNukes,
Each decay of an atomic nuclei emits particles which go on to collide with other nuclei, in turn causing them to split and emit particles which go on to collide with other nuclei, and so on ad infinitum. But the likelihood of a particle colliding with another nuclei is small and this cascade quickly peters out unless there is a critical mass of decaying nuclei. The cascade of splitting nuclei begun by spontaneously decaying nuclei is called fission, and if the decay rate changes then the amount of fission changes.

Your first statement is just nonsense. The only explanation I can see for it now is that you think the terms decay and fission can be used as synonyms. But decay is an uninduced process. It should not be used to refer to fissioning after neutron absorption.

It turns out that for all practical purposes, the only particle that works to produce fission in this way is a neutron.


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 247 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 8:41 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 10:20 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 249 of 305 (712579)
12-05-2013 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by NoNukes
12-05-2013 9:37 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
Hi NoNukes,

You have a mistaken interpretation. The sentence following the one you bolded makes clear that in the bolded sentence I could not possibly have meant that each decay particle strikes a nucleus, that I only meant that each decay emits particles. I can see that I could have expressed myself more clearly, but that hardly justifies this crusade you're on.

Fair enough. I'll admit to being dogged in my approach to debating. I'm not sure there is anything wrong with that, but I know it doesn't win me any friends.

Debating? You seem to be working very hard at misinterpreting passages that you then attack relentlessly. I have no interest in continuing.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 9:37 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 12:00 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 305 (712611)
12-05-2013 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by Percy
12-05-2013 10:20 AM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
Percy writes:

You have a mistaken interpretation.

...

I have no interest in continuing.

That's fine. I have no problem with you deciding to stop. In fact I appreciate that your bothered to respond to my last message after saying that you were not going to respond. I count that as a point in your favor.

But because your ending post ended with a slam at me, I am going to respond. I'll do my best not to include a slam at you so that you are not tempted to badly to respond. But I am going to express my opinion.

My interpretation is based on your mistaken statement. You were not just not clear enough; based on what you say here, your statement was just plain wrong.

If you did indeed mean decay particles rather than fission, as you now suggest, then the truth is that decay particles generally do not strike other nuclei and it is impossible to assemble enough decay nuclides to make a critical mass. The assembly of material into a critical mass refers to fission not decay, and that's not simply because of definition or semantics. Physics does not allow you make a chain reaction out of decay products by assembling a critical mass. So not even the follow on statements rescue you.

So, no I did not work hard at misinterpreting your passage. You screwed up. You posted a statement that even you cannot reinterpret as being correct and are placing the blame for that on me.

I make no apology for being relentless. I generally do take my foot off of a man's neck if I see even an implicit admission of a mistake. But yeah, sometimes I don't quit if the other man won't quit, and your accusation that I distributed misinformation without your bothering to point out any of did irk me.

I will take it easier on you in the future. I have no desire to provoke ill feelings.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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 249 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 10:20 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 1:32 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 251 of 305 (712647)
12-05-2013 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by NoNukes
12-05-2013 12:00 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
NoNukes writes:

In fact I appreciate that your bothered to respond to my last message after saying that you were not going to respond.

I didn't say that, either. Does this ever stop?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 12:00 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 2:03 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 305 (712649)
12-05-2013 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Percy
12-05-2013 1:32 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
I didn't say that, either. Does this ever stop?

You said you were not interested. I assumed that meant you were planning to stop this line of discussion entirely, and I was surprised to see you continue. I did appreciate your doing so.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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 251 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 1:32 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 2:31 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18308
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 253 of 305 (712650)
12-05-2013 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by NoNukes
12-05-2013 2:03 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
NoNukes writes:

You said you were not interested. I assumed that meant you were planning to stop...

And this is why I don't want to debate Mindspawn's made up effect with you. There seems little I can say that you can't misinterpret, and you're making errors faster than they can be corrected. I don't know what's causing your misinterpretations or why you're so rapidly jumping to conclusions, but I'm not interested in continuing if this is the way it is to be.

However, I'll of course continue to note misstatements you make about what I've said. I'm a person, not a punching bag.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 2:03 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 4:26 PM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 305 (712654)
12-05-2013 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Percy
12-05-2013 2:31 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
I don't know what's causing your misinterpretations

And I don't know what's causing you to make statements which don't have any interpretation that is scientifically correct and to then accuse me of misinterpreting them. I still do not see any possible way to read your statement and not take issue with it. I might well have gored an interpretation that was not what you meant.

I also don't know which of my statements you consider to be misinformation.

And this is why I don't want to debate Mindspawn's made up effect with you.

You and I were never debating about that. Fishbach's effect is not even real.

In case you had not noticed, my position in this extended discussion was about your statements and had very little to do with anything mindspawn posted.

A bad argument in defense of a correct position is still a bad argument. And for everyone except you, I'll continue to call people on bad arguments if I find their errors significant. Starting today, you have a free pass from me to post any and all bad physics you choose to post.[1]

I'm a person, not a punching bag.

I can dig it. Take all of the swings at me you think I deserve. I'm in a baking hot office today and I can use the breeze.

[1] I'm not 100% sure I can keep that promise, but I'm going to try.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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 253 by Percy, posted 12-05-2013 2:31 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2013 5:55 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 257 by Percy, posted 12-06-2013 8:11 AM NoNukes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.2


(6)
Message 255 of 305 (712657)
12-05-2013 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by NoNukes
12-05-2013 4:26 PM


Re: Variation in Decay Rates
aren't you guys a little off topic here? fighting between selves is not about the GD.

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 254 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 4:26 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by NoNukes, posted 12-05-2013 7:57 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
1516
17
18192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019