Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8993 total)
71 online now:
dwise1, ICANT, nwr, Pollux, xongsmith (5 members, 66 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,213 Year: 10,961/23,288 Month: 213/1,763 Week: 180/390 Day: 0/69 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Uranium Dating
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1429 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(1)
Message 55 of 153 (573575)
08-12-2010 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 7:10 PM


Hello Archeologist,

it is all hearsay, assumption or conjecture.

Here is some more evidence based on physics that may be easier to grasp than logarithmic examples. According to the Bible the sun was created after the earth. It takes light about 8 minutes 20 seconds to reach the earth from the surface of the sun. But that light leaving the surface of the sun did not originate there. It is the result of nuclear fusion in the interior of the sun. That light is absorbed and re-emitted as it moves in a "random walk" and eventually reaches the surface of the sun. Most of this light takes 10,000 years on the low end and 170,000 years on the high end to do this. So on day one of the earth "6,000 years ago" the light striking the earth was already at least 10,000 years older even though the sun was created after the earth..

Oh.. and no one's your enemy here..

The core is the only location in the Sun that produces an appreciable amount of heat through fusion; inside 24% of the Sun's radius, 99% of the power has been generated, and by 30% of the radius, fusion has stopped nearly entirely. The rest of the star is heated by energy that is transferred outward from the core and the layers just outside. The energy produced by fusion in the core must then travel through many successive layers to the solar photosphere before it escapes into space as sunlight or kinetic energy of particles.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

The gamma rays (high-energy photons) released in fusion reactions are absorbed in only a few millimeters of solar plasma and then re-emitted again in random direction (and at slightly lower energy)—so it takes a long time for radiation to reach the Sun's surface. Estimates of the "photon travel time" range between 10,000 and 170,000 years.

Source:
http://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/locations/ttt_sunlight.php

Understanding nuclear fission, half lives, etc requires at least calculus math level. I don't know if you are that far along yet in your schooling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 7:10 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1429 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 60 of 153 (573599)
08-12-2010 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 5:11 AM


unfortunately there are many creationists who do not educate themselves and cannot handle discussions on these type of forums
unlike you, our decision was for the truth not science

Google "false dichotomy"

you know as well as i that science is too limited of a research field and is too subjective to be any standard at all

How many religions based on the Bible are there?
If a particular way of interpreting the Bible conflicts with known facts I can know that that interpretation of the Bible must necessarily be false..

do you see my point yet?

So you are saying that creation is not ex-nihilo but re-organization of existing material, fine. But how does that explain the problem of light taking between 10,000 to 170,000 years to get from the center of the sun to the surface? Was the sun created approximately at the time the earth was created or not? Whether it was created from pre-existing matter or not is irrelevent to my point.

you have no idea what my schooling is

hs or beginning freshman at best..
"archeologist" chosen to give weight to your POV by appeal to authority..

our decision was for the truth not science

unfortunately your education stops there..

Apologies for wandering from Uranium dating. Back to that now..
If the table was created from old wood what problem do you have with Uranium dating?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 5:11 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:16 AM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1429 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(1)
Message 87 of 153 (573982)
08-13-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Contingent
11-19-2008 3:36 AM


The process of radiological dating has several intrensic flaws, the most glaring of which is that it assumes set levels of the isotopes measured between samples origionally. For example, in U238 dating, the U238 decays into lead. The only problem with dating samples based on the ratio of the two is that lead occurs natrually, and often in the company of uranium and other heavy metals. The ratio of natural lead to uranium is not constant ether, as lead can occur with little or no radiological involvement.
Basically, there is no way of predicting the actual decay time on the remaining U238, as extra natural lead is everywhere and probably with the uranium wherever it may manifest. This same inaccuracy is inherant in all other methods of radiological dating. Nothing says that the levels of carbon 14 are or were constant at any point in history, or that the levels of solar radiation that cause the isotope in the atmosphere were ever constant.

This is not true. It might apply to an elementary first discussion/explanation of radiometric dating but not to actual methods of dating used in practice.
The isochron method does not depend upon knowing the initial concentrations of isotopes originally. In fact it is a method of measuring not only the age
but the original isotope concentrations as well. They fall out when plotting the data as the Y intercept.

source:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html

Carbon 14 is understood to vary with time and is not unknown to the scientific community. That is why it is calibrated against tree rings, etc.

This is brief.. but the OP was a cut and paste..

To archeologist..
If you disagree I will discuss it in more detail IF you do your homework and actually read and demonstrate that you comprehend the references listed.

remember i have found the truth and do not need to search any more.

This is quite a frightening statement. Please start a thread in the religous section of this forum and show from the Bible where such an attitude is supported. Thanks.

Edited by shalamabobbi, : spelling.. slept late..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Contingent, posted 11-19-2008 3:36 AM Contingent has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:12 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1429 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 120 of 153 (574105)
08-14-2010 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 11:55 PM


Re: Uranium Halos and Redirect on 14C
there is no way possible to tell how many isotopes are in the specimen at their origin or how many really did exit throughout their life and after.

Ah, so you didn't do your homework..if you had read the articles cited you would know that the method proves the starting isotopic composition and that the system has remained closed.
If it were as bad as you intimate then the data points would not fall on a straight line (isochrons).

but you are not verifying it, all one is using are modern ideas without any help from ancient sources to confirm.

Again, you didn't even read the articles. If you had read the articles you might have noticed that the dating methods were verified by testing them on historical samples of known age.

if all dating systems agree, then i would think that there was collusion, pre-programming done to ensure a certain date was selected

And who would be responsible for this collusion?? It would have to have taken place before the existence of mankind.. (someone is calling God a liar..)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 11:55 PM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by archaeologist, posted 08-14-2010 3:34 AM shalamabobbi has responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1429 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 125 of 153 (574163)
08-14-2010 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by archaeologist
08-14-2010 3:34 AM


Re: Uranium Halos and Redirect on 14C
still doesn't tell you how many they started with when the decline initiated nor does it tell you how many are lost because of the mitigating factors that play a role in the decline of isotopes.

bodies eaten by birds and animals, natural disasters spoiling the body, and so much more.

All you've done here is re-emphasize the fact that you didn't read the articles. The isochron method DOES tell us how many they started with "when the decline initiated". The method measures that quantity, it is the y-intercept.

The rest of your objection illustrates that you do not yet understand the distinction between isochron dating and C14 dating. The bodies eaten by birds etc are the types of specimens that would be dated by C14 and this part of your "mitigating factors" plays no role whatsoever in the isochron dating technique.

This is the reason I do not believe your claim to hold higher degrees and believe you are a youth. ( That and your sensitivity.)

Your argument is incoherent. You say that dating techniques are calling God a liar and yet you claim that the Bible doesn't pinpoint when God created the heavens and the earth.

all you people are doing is throwing up weak excuses so you can maintain whatever weak belief you have in your own systems. you also hate the fact that i do not accept your systems blindly like you do. can't help it, there are just too many errors involved for me to accept such frail methods.

If you were capable of seeing it, your critique actually applies to yourself.

What makes more sense? Treating the statement in Genesis that Eve was created from Adam's rib as an allegory that illustrates woman's place is at a man's side as his companion, his equal. (she wasn't created from his foot to be his slave, nor from his head to rule over him)
Or to treat the statement as a literal historical event?? If a slice of pie is cherry is the next slice out of the pie pan apple?

Sorry to see you suspended. Hope you come back soon. The enforcement to stay on topic sometimes seems a nuisance, but having been in forums where this is not enforced I've seen countless threads derailed and destroyed and turn into a chaotic soup.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by archaeologist, posted 08-14-2010 3:34 AM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 1429 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 129 of 153 (574267)
08-15-2010 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by archaeologist
08-15-2010 12:35 AM


welcome back archeologist,

I don't have time tonight to respond. I'd like to take up your jelly bean example and relate that to the isochron method of dating. I remember you made a comment "you americans" in a post and would like to know whether english is your native language. Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 12:35 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 4:05 AM shalamabobbi 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 © 2020