Not only does this young man not seem to be acquainted with science, but he also doesn't seem to know the scriptures. The earth is 6k years old starting from the fall of Adam and Eve, not from it's creation. Still doesn't answer a lot of questions brought up by archeology and such, though November 24th, , January 7th, , How do you know there was no daughter in the rock tested, or, conversely, how do you know how much of the daughter was originally in the rock tested.
August 21st, , Originally Posted by marnixR. Extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. The crux of creationist arguements is that science can't prove that at some point in the past the rate of radiologic decay was not much faster than the rate observed now, by scientists. This is true, however, the corresponding question to creationists is can they show any experimental data that demonstrates that radiologic rate of decay can be increased? If you are saying it happened in the past it is reasonable to ask you to prove it can happen.
If I accuse you of burning the records, then it is appropriate for you to ask me to demonstrate that the material the records were written on can actually be burned. Originally Posted by Alan Last edited by pineapples; August 23rd, at August 22nd, , If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. August 25th, , The claim that the rate of readiologic decay was not constant in the past still requires some evidence that under some set of conditions the rale of decay can be speeded up.
So far there is no such evidence. The ball is in the creationists court. You are challenged to do some real science or shut up. August 31st, , Originally Posted by Paleoichneum. Incorrect, as macroevolution has been observed, and is simply micorevolution over a longer number of generations, not time. They are not creationist terms, as I have used them and seen them used and defined in college level text books and curricula. While creationists see a distinction that is insurmountable, evolutionary biologists do not and simply look at the time frames as to which is being referenced.
Originally Posted by Quantum immortal. Microevolution and macroevolution are creationist terms. They are not valid scientific terms. September 1st, , Originally Posted by billvon. Originally Posted by exchemist. How does one observe and experiment with events which occurred beyond observation and expermentation. Macroevolution cannot be confirmed using the scientific method. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them.
September 3rd, , But this doesn't put a large group of religious nuts at ease, while disproving radiometric dating would. Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society.
- how to go from casual dating to a relationship.
- signs youre dating a workaholic.
- matchmaking services north carolina.
Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society. Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Is it Dahmer et al. They have Found C14 in Diamonds.
Made up fairy tale. Tell me, which Bible do you use?surculpfoofatbio.cf/1454-mac-and-cheese.php
What are the assumptions used with radiometric dating?
What about 1, 2, 3, and 4 Esdras, Psalms — , Odeas? What abour Prayer of Manasseh? The Gospel of Judas or the Gospel of Thomas? Enoch, Jubilees, 1, 2, 3 Meqabyan? Will nothing shake your faith? The Fossils date the rocks, and the rocks date the fossils! Except that there are known explanations for this: The small apparent non-zero values are less than measurement error.
Thus things like cosmic rays and imperfect vacuums can contribute to the C content even with modern techniques. While that same level of contamination will add some error to the dating of some reasonably aged sample, the error will be small, so long as the sample is not too old. Alternate source of C14 production. Natural diamonds are not pure carbon. The most common contaminant is nitrogen, 0. Cosmic rays and other sources of radiation can form C14 from N Another possible avenue is C13, which has a small but non-zero neutron absorption cross section.
By either mechanism, this is essentially internal contamination. Other methods of dating are more appropriate. You believe what you like. You are meaningless to the scientific community and if you try to promote teaching of your religion in schools, then I will be involved with the groups who stop you.
The evidence for evolution and physics working is unbelievably massive and the evidence that creationists lie and misrepresent real science is also massive. Many of the same principles that are important to things like computers, clocks, and GPS systems are also the same principles that define why radiometric dating works.
You accept some, but not all, not because of evidence, but because your beliefs refuse to allow you accept it. You really need to think about a belief system that prevents you from seeing reality for what it is. Geeze, Creepto-guru, what a load of malarky you can generate. Did you write a word salad program? Well, you did a great job. The paper you referenced is totally useless, as are you, to your argument.
The variation was on the order of 1. From your little avatar you look like a happy sort of hobbit. The paper I referenced was useful, as you mentioned, in showing testable and measurable variation in a decay-rate. That was the point. Do you have scientific experiments that show that all those assumptions hold up for the methods over the period of time that are of interest to you? If you do somehow manage to believe these things always work, how do you explain the countless cases of provably terrible rock dating? Or do you pretend that never happens. I suppose ignorance IS bliss … is it?
Fujii, Yasunori et al.
The nuclear interaction at Oklo 2 billion years ago. Nuclear Physics B Constraints on stellar yields and Sne from gamma-ray line observations. New Astronony Reviews Nucleosynthesis in type 1A supernovae. Nucleosynthesis in type II supernovae. Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe and its cosmological implications. Calibration against Pliny the Younger. Direct test of the constancy of fundamental nuclear constants. Oklo interactions have also been used to validate a young earth view after analysis of the restraints imposed on the alpha-decay half-lives.
I do have rebuttals for that stuff. The researchers chose a fluence monitor that is only 1. What is your field of study? Are you a disgruntled Science Teacher at a secondary school in Texas raised amidst bible-thumping nitwits who hate gay people and struggle to formulate sentences?? Explain in English how it works in the face of contamination and untrustworthy decay-rates.
Let me go through it real slow and maybe the penny will drop. Let me demonstrate your faulty logic with an anology: We use a stopwatch to calculate the laptime of runners around a race track. The stopwatch can only count long enough to accurately measure runners that run the track faster than 12mph. I tell you that my 92 year old Grandma would like to have her lap timed, she used to be a great runner when she was young, and would love to see how fast she it now.
I ask you to do it anyway just to humour her. You cannot now claim that the stopwatch was the wrong way to measure her. Umm… The Oklo reactor allows us to measure the fine structure constant from 1. The radioactive isotopes created in supernova explosions produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. Therefore, there is has been no measurable change in decay rates over , years and no factors that could affect decay rates have changed in over 1.
Your paper by Overman is pretty funny. Nine references, one of which is a business statistics book and two of which are creationists. But I enjoy watching your confirmation bias. And there is no way to measure the one way speed of light. Try again, loser, with another creationist. How about Kurt Wise? Or maybe Hugh Ross?
Come on, Creepto, get cracking! See how I did that? I suppose the problem comes down to the origin of the granite samples and whether or not they are primordial granite or not. Tell you what though … the diamond Po halos stuff by Snelling is more compelling, as the location of the diamond is not important. I gave the AiG link to Kevin too … I know you love those guys https: Do you only like to argue when your mates are with you? Again, boo fucking hoo. Right, all of chemistry is based on assumptions pulled out of the air because that explains why chemistry works so well.
Oh, and nuclear chemistry is a total mystery; nobody knows why decay happens and analytical chemistry is just lucky I guess.
- What are the assumptions used with radiometric dating? - Returning to Genesis!
- need some dating site!
Tell you what, Creepto, you go ahead and believe that. Sucks to be you, Creepto. I am pretty good at being able to identify when someone has run out of credible arguments and has to resort to 5 yr old name-calling. So unless you can manage to pull an interesting fact for grown-up debate out of your arse you should probably avoid the device with letters on it in front of you that has enabled your communicative diarrhoea.
I have not failed anything. I have been approached several times by the department to go back and finish what I started, as I had discovered some new useful things in the field that they would like to get published. That is all completely beside the point … and a cunning diversion from your inability to answer any actual scientific questions. Or does it happen all the time irrespective of how badly your side of the argument is going?
And the need to explain everything from first principles every post, because the basic arguments get distorted and misrepresented at every turn. You are too funny, Creepto! No one misrepresented your arguments, and do point out who did that, rather they pointed out your arguments were crapola.
- essay dating relationships.
- Assumptions of Radioactive Dating.
- Radiometric Dating.
- dating a person with ptsd!
The process of nuclear decay is settled science, not a mystery, you buffoon. Geeze, louise, you are one thick brick. You are so pathetic. Bully for him, actually. But after a group of creationists had a shit fit about it, he said, well, it might work and they went off happy. Through your grammatical tirade you show how little you really understand about the limits of science, assumptions, evidence, and the real scientific method. Some have tried to LIE and say he only sampled a few small areas, but he actually obtains granite samples from all over the world to test.
His work shows the earth was NOT a boiling hot ball of lava as Evolution likes to claim.
Restoring the Authority of the Bible, Starting with the very first Book
Granite was cooled and formed in Microseconds leaving Halos behind in the stone. HEy guys um, ijust have one question for you guys, do you believe in a young Earth or an old Earth. Who are you asking? Well all the evidence that exists says that Earth is about 4. That includes radiometric dating of meteors, moon rock, and Earth samples, lunar retreat, impact craters, continental drift, lack of DNA in fossils, geomagnetic reversals, varves, the Oklo natural nuclear reactor, etc.
All of these, from multiple independent fields, indicate that Earth is much older than a Young Earth Creationist model. In fact, just considering that model, we can ice layers, coral growth, tree rings, stratigraphy, and several other methods… all of which show Earth must be older than the 10, years of the YEC model. The framework generated by application of the scientific method does not rely on, nor rest on, a single line but, rather, the convergence of many lines of study.
Thus, the expansion of the Atlantic Ocean by plate tectonics is supported by the matching geology of eastern South America and western Africa, matching fossil evidence from both places, agreement with the current rate of plate movement and most beautifully of all symmetrical core samples on either side of the mid-Atlantic ridge of paleomagnetic reversals. The current age of the universe, the understanding of the underlying physics requires many years of study in graduate school, is currently known to be Note the precision of that number!
Not , but zero point seven nine eight plus or minus point oh three seven. The age of the earth is known to be 4. By uniformitarianism I assume you mean that the properties of physics 4 billion years ago are the same as they are today. That is not only a good assumption but there are underlying principles of physics that demonstrate that to be true.
Real catastrophes did happen, the formation of the moon being one, which melted the Earth. Your complete dogma about the age of things is very sad. We are living in an atheistic and racist world. Of course, if you lie to the lab about the rock like the creationists did , then they will actually have false assumptions about said rock. Which leads to bad results. Instead if you actually understand how to acquire and prepare the source rocks, then you will get a continuous system of ages using multiple, totally independent types of radioactive processes. I do love how you through in that dig about atheism somehow being related to racism.
Never show it to your colleagues or share it with your students.
Related 3 assumptions of radiometric dating
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved