Young Earth Creationist dynamics.

[SkyWriting]

Once again an ignorant layman comes in to tell us all how science works, and yet if I were to explain to everyone what Christianity meant, I'd probably get banned from the forum.

I've worked in Science R&D for 30 years, but I know nothing of the less-practical soft branches that exist. You are free to fill in details from school as you wish. If somebody told you to shuush! when you were in church once, those stories are welcome as well.

 

[CabVet]

I've worked in Science R&D for 30 years, but I know nothing of the less-practical soft branches that exist. You are free to fill in details from school as you wish. If somebody told you to shuush! when you were in church once, those stories are welcome as well.

I like your signature, I have one for you:

The Religious Method
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a religious text, that is not consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the religious text as if it were the absolute truth.
4. Force others to accept the truth from your religious text.
5. REPEAT STEPS 3 and 4 until there are none left that haven't heard your message.
6. Allow supporters to go to heaven and detractors to go to hell.

By the way, your signature is pretty accurate for bad scientists. The only problem is that people also have access to step 1, which would make steps 3 and 4 wrong.

 

[SkyWriting]

What creationists ignore is all the independent ways that show that radioactive decay is the same today as it was billions of years ago.

I guess that will continue until you show us.

 

[SkyWriting]

By the way, your signature is pretty accurate for bad scientists.

The only problem is that people also have access to step 1,
which would make steps 3 and 4 wrong.

Oh.
I didn't write the scientific method.
Please forward your corrections to my sources:
Scientific Method - an introduction to the Scientific Method
Introduction to the Scientific Method
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

So, what corrections did you tell them to make?

 

[juvenissun]

I like your signature, I have one for you:

The Religious Method
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a religious text, that is not consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the religious text as if it were the absolute truth.
4. Force others to accept the truth from your religious text.
5. REPEAT STEPS 3 and 4 until there are none left that haven't heard your message.
6. Allow supporters to go to heaven and detractors to go to hell.

By the way, your signature is pretty accurate for bad scientists. The only problem is that people also have access to step 1, which would make steps 3 and 4 wrong.

A serious consideration for you:

I agreed with you on the first two:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a religious text, that is not consistent with what you have observed.

But, think about this:

Some of these apparently stupid descriptions are proven to be true a few thousand years later. And the rest of the stupid descriptions are still subject to debate by scientific community. None of the stupid descriptions is proven wrong.

If you are not impressed by this degree of wisdom, then I guess you are truly blind.

 

[Assyrian]

So, according to them, the earth was molten. The secular knowledge also said that the earth was molten (by a different reason). So, judged by the argument of granite (or basalt) melting, how is Creationism wrong?

I suppose the main problem is the inconvenience of having the earth molten when people are trying to live there. You highlighted my point that melting would rest the radiometric clocks, so with accelerated decay you couldn't get granites that measure older then the 28 million years or basalts reading older than 161million years, which we clearly do. Do you have an answer to the problem?

 

[Assyrian]

What creationists ignore is all the independent ways that show that radioactive decay is the same today as it was billions of years ago. They also like to throw out the word "assumption" as if it were only a guess, while ignoring the very fact that their "assumption" that rates have changed is completely baseless with absolutely no supporting evidence.

I would like to see the supporting evidence that decay rates have change. The very few isotopes that do vary ever so slightly, are short-lived isotopes not used for dating; and even if they were that variation is not outside the realm of statistical reliability. Zaius?

I agree totally. There is a recurring theme with Creationist arguments that their models keep melting the planet or sterilising it with superheated steam.

 

[RickG]

I guess that will continue until you show us.

1. If decay rates had changed the very properties that govern those rates would change. No property change is observed in any radionuclides of any age.

2. All radionuclides have different decay rates. When samples containing many different radionuclides and are tested for each, they all agree with the same age. This can't happen if rates change.

3. A really big one. Decay rates of radionuclides in supernova millions of light years away have been observed and measured. They are the same as is measured today.

4. This doesn't date to billions of years, but there are also many non radiometric dating methods that date well beyond 6,000 years that also agree with radiometric methods.

5. The idea that decay rates have changed is nothing more that a baseless assertion with absolutely no physical evidence to support the assertion. The very few radionuclides that do vary are of very short half-life and are not used in radiometric dating. Even if they were the variation is generally less than 3% which is well within statistically reliability.

 

[juvenissun]

I suppose the main problem is the inconvenience of having the earth molten when people are trying to live there. You highlighted my point that melting would rest the radiometric clocks, so with accelerated decay you couldn't get granites that measure older then the 28 million years or basalts reading older than 161million years, which we clearly do. Do you have an answer to the problem?

No.

This problem is beyond the heat and melting consideration and has to be dealt with in a different paradigm.

 

[juvenissun]

It must be absolutely diabolical to be religious, all that belief and absolutely nothing to show for it, nothing what so ever.

Every bit of it, part of it or piece of it turns out to be crap, nothing but rubbish.

For example?

 

[Zaius137]

1. If decay rates had changed the very properties that govern those rates would change. No property change is observed in any radionuclides of any age.

2. All radionuclides have different decay rates. When samples containing many different radionuclides and are tested for each, they all agree with the same age. This can't happen if rates change.

3. A really big one. Decay rates of radionuclides in supernova millions of light years away have been observed and measured. They are the same as is measured today.

4. This doesn't date to billions of years, but there are also many non radiometric dating methods that date well beyond 6,000 years that also agree with radiometric methods.

5. The idea that decay rates have changed is nothing more that a baseless assertion with absolutely no physical evidence to support the assertion. The very few radionuclides that do vary are of very short half-life and are not used in radiometric dating. Even if they were the variation is generally less than 3% which is well within statistically reliability.

What is your comment on the following findings? Are the gentleman named on the peer reviewed work out to lunch? Let me remind you that a new discovery in science need not have an immediate explanation or we are only tailoring science after our own thinking. I find that the following finding is significant in many ways.

• It breaks the old belief in science that decay rates are more or less constant
• Since the distance from the earth to sun only varies by 1.7% the varying decay rate is significant.
• I find it perfectly reasonable that since two decay rates are well documented that other rates could also vary.
• Since there is now precedence for radioactive decay changing a mechanism is now in place to support the claims of the RATE team.

Radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation: research

Jenkins, J. H.; et al., Ephraim; Buncher, John B.; Gruenwald, John T.; Krause, Dennis E.; Mattes, Joshua J. (2009). "Evidence of correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance". Astroparticle Physics 32 (1): 42–46. arXiv:0808.3283. Bibcode 2009APh....32...42J. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2009.05.004.

 

[CabVet]

What is your comment on the following findings? Are the gentleman named on the peer reviewed work out to lunch? Let me remind you that a new discovery in science need not have an immediate explanation or we are only tailoring science after our own thinking. I find that the following finding is significant in many ways.

• It breaks the old belief in science that decay rates are more or less constant
• Since the distance from the earth to sun only varies by 1.7% the varying decay rate is significant.
• I find it perfectly reasonable that since two decay rates are well documented that other rates could also vary.
• Since there is now precedence for radioactive decay changing a mechanism is now in place to support the claims of the RATE team.

Radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation: research

Jenkins, J. H.; et al., Ephraim; Buncher, John B.; Gruenwald, John T.; Krause, Dennis E.; Mattes, Joshua J. (2009). "Evidence of correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance". Astroparticle Physics 32 (1): 42–46. arXiv:0808.3283. Bibcode 2009APh....32...42J. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2009.05.004.

Way to mischaracterize findings. From the very same link you post:

"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings"

 

[Zaius137]

Way to mischaracterize findings. From the very same link you post:

"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings"

Remember the decay rate fluctuation is proportional to 1/R^2. That means the radius has an effect of the square to the resulting value. Increase the radius and the effect is compounded.


Would I misrepresent the data?

 

[Zaius137]

"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings"

Except now the anthropological findings could support a (RATE) type scenario.

 

[juvenissun]

Way to mischaracterize findings. From the very same link you post:

"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings"

I think it is a very informative link and could be very significant.

Are you speechless and only know denial on the linked info?

 

[juvenissun]

What is your comment on the following findings? Are the gentleman named on the peer reviewed work out to lunch? Let me remind you that a new discovery in science need not have an immediate explanation or we are only tailoring science after our own thinking. I find that the following finding is significant in many ways.

• It breaks the old belief in science that decay rates are more or less constant
• Since the distance from the earth to sun only varies by 1.7% the varying decay rate is significant.
• I find it perfectly reasonable that since two decay rates are well documented that other rates could also vary.
• Since there is now precedence for radioactive decay changing a mechanism is now in place to support the claims of the RATE team.

Radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation: research

Jenkins, J. H.; et al., Ephraim; Buncher, John B.; Gruenwald, John T.; Krause, Dennis E.; Mattes, Joshua J. (2009). "Evidence of correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance". Astroparticle Physics 32 (1): 42–46. arXiv:0808.3283. Bibcode 2009APh....32...42J. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2009.05.004.

Hey, thanks for the link. Very good.

 

[RickG]

What is your comment on the following findings? Are the gentleman named on the peer reviewed work out to lunch? Let me remind you that a new discovery in science need not have an immediate explanation or we are only tailoring science after our own thinking. I find that the following finding is significant in many ways.

• It breaks the old belief in science that decay rates are more or less constant
• Since the distance from the earth to sun only varies by 1.7% the varying decay rate is significant.
• I find it perfectly reasonable that since two decay rates are well documented that other rates could also vary.
• Since there is now precedence for radioactive decay changing a mechanism is now in place to support the claims of the RATE team.

Radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation: research

Jenkins, J. H.; et al., Ephraim; Buncher, John B.; Gruenwald, John T.; Krause, Dennis E.; Mattes, Joshua J. (2009). "Evidence of correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance". Astroparticle Physics 32 (1): 42–46. arXiv:0808.3283. Bibcode 2009APh....32...42J. doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2009.05.004.

Skepticism is one of the most important tools a scientist can have, that is why sourcing and critiquing the "full" body of science is important, not just a narrow focus point.

I believe several pages back I already commented on the Jenkins al paper. Even the paper states that the variation is very small and it is only talking about two radionuclides. The paper also makes no statements about decay rates changing, only that those two radionuclides (Si-32 & Ra-226) appear to fluctuate due to seasons very slightly. As I have previously pointed out, those radionuclides are of very short half-life and are not used in any dating methods. Those that are used in dating methods have not been observed changing rates. Two things I will note concerning the paper are (1) I could find no papers that have repeated, much less supported the phenomena described in the paper and (2) I did find a few comments on a physics forum that described known seasonal variations in instrumentation. Nevertheless, beta decay, which those two nuclides exhibit has been know to be affected by neutrinos, muons and gamma rays, which can cause nuclear changes, but not the half-life of a radionuclide. If anything, was was observed in Jenkins et al, was only what I just described or instrument variation. Even at that, the observed change is completely insignificant.

The decay rates of all radionuclides are known within 2% with three exceptions, rhenium (5%), luitetium (3%) and beryllium (3%). Again, none of those are used in radiometric dating. Even if that much variation existed in those radionuclides that are used in dating, a rock that dated between 150 million years and 165 million years is hardly a case for a young earth.

Now, let's look at some of the other facts you conveniently ignore.

• Different radiometric dating methods agree with one another.
• Non radiometric dating methods agree with dates given by radiometric methods and vice versa.
• If the physics had hanged it would be observable.
• Experiments have been performed to change decay rates which include extreme pressure, vacuum, heat, cold, trauma, etc. No decay rates were changed. (Emery 1972).
• Decay rates have been predicted through quantum mechanics. Direct measurements verify those predictions/calculations in all cases.
• [FONT=&quot](Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998; [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Knödlseder 2000; [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Prantzos 1999; [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Perlmutter et al. 1998[/FONT][FONT=&quot]).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Emery, G. T., 1972. Perturbation of nuclear decay rates. Annual Review Nuclear Science 22: 165-202. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Nomoto, K. et al., 1997a. Nucleosynthesis in type 1A supernovae. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706025[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Nomoto, K. et al., 1997b. Nucleosynthesis in type II supernovae. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9706024[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]4. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Knödlseder, J., 2000. Constraints on stellar yields and Sne from gamma-ray line observations. New Astronony Reviews 44: 315-320. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9912131[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]5. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Perlmutter, S. et al., 1998. Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe and its cosmological implications. Nature 391: 51-54. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9712212[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Prantzos, N., 1999. Gamma-ray line astrophysics and stellar nucleosynthesis: perspectives for INTEGRAL. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9901373[/FONT]

 

[RickG]

Remember the decay rate fluctuation is proportional to 1/R^2. That means the radius has an effect of the square to the resulting value. Increase the radius and the effect is compounded.


Would I misrepresent the data?

Apparently you just did. An exponent in an equation does not create an exponential error. An error of 2% is only 2%.

 

[Split Rock]

"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings"

Except now the anthropological findings could support a (RATE) type scenario.

There isn't anythimng that can supprt a "RATE type" scenario, since the RATE study was purposely done wrong to try and impune radiometric measurement technology that is used as standard by the geological community. In other words, garbage in, garbage out, and nothing will turn the garbage into a bed of roses.

 

[juvenissun]

There isn't anythimng that can supprt a "RATE type" scenario, since the RATE study was purposely done wrong to try and impune radiometric measurement technology that is used as standard by the geological community. In other words, garbage in, garbage out, and nothing will turn the garbage into a bed of roses.

Hey, I thought you are a Ph.D. and can do good argument.

If some non-garbage studies support a garbage study, then the garbage study becomes a non-garbage study.