Problem with doing that, guys like you tend to attack the individual rather than the scientific contend contained within it.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
With respect to the topic of this thread, I would like to suggest that you provide a citation to a specific creation science paper concerning the flood so we can discuss the scientific content contained with it. You help will be appreciated.
Blessings.
That is the reason why I worded the OP in the manner I did. I want to discuss the science and only the science. However, pointing out an authors background and experience in the area of science is not an attack on the person. For example, Carl Wieland has written a paper which he believes to show that ice core chronology is not reliable. It would not be an attack upon him if someone were to point out that Dr. Wieland is a medical doctor who and has no background or experience in glaciology or paleoclimatology. However, that person should also should provide specific information as to what specific information the "author" appears to lack an understanding of with respect to the scientific content of the paper and should refer to the person as "the author". Having said that, I also want to make it clear that a person not having a background or experience in as specific area does not make that person automatically unqualified concerning the topic. What would make that person qualified or unqualified is their presentation of the science. That is, is the science valid or not; and the validity of the science needs to be shown with the science, not by an opinion.Problem with doing that, guys like you tend to attack the individual rather than the scientific contend contained within it.
Great question. It comes from the studies of crystals and crystal formation and atom theory and radioactivity. And geochemistry.Hello Rick. If we examine a rock with lead in it, then we examine the lead isotopes. We might find say Pb-206 at 25%. Now how do you know whether the isotope Pb-206, came from U-238 decay or a U-235 fission?
Great question, again. We know it from the studies of crystal formation. We know which isotopes of Pb can fit into the crystals during crystallisation; which isotopes of Uranium can fit into which crystals during crystallisation, etc.Secondly Rick, how do you know what the initial percentage of Pb-206 was in a given sample?
Really? If asked citations to the specific creation science article it is viewed as an attack?Problem with doing that, guys like you tend to attack the individual rather than the scientific contend contained within it.
Unfortunately as of yet, I have been unable to get anyone to provide a specific citation to any creation science article. My intent is not to refute the concept of the article, but to examine the scientific data, methods used and analysis of that data. I want to concentrate on the actual science presented as opposed to the person(s) presenting it. What merits does it have as well as problems it may have from a scientific point of view.Really? If asked citations to the specific creation science article it is viewed as an attack?
Unfortunately as of yet, I have been unable to get anyone to provide a specific citation to any creation science article. My intent is not to refute the concept of the article, but to examine the scientific data, methods used and analysis of that data. I want to concentrate on the actual science presented as opposed to the person(s) presenting it. What merits does it have as well as problems it may have from a scientific point of view.
The lab which test the sample(s) can only go on what information the people providing the sample(s) provide them. Thus thus the wrong applications may be applied which has nothing to do with the test method validity. I even know of one example where supposed dinosaur bone was sent to the Univ. of Georgia Radiocarbon lab for dating collagen. The lab had stated that they never dated any such dino collagen, thus a strong indication that the sample was deliberately misrepresented. In addition in reading the creation science description of what was sent was bone. A radiocarbon lab will date bone, but they are not going to go through the process of dissolving calcification where collagen may or may not be.The closest I have seen would be the RATE study on zircons and helium diffusion. They actually do experiments and test hypotheses. The only problem is that their hypotheses are incorrect, but at least they tried.
http://www.icr.org/article/helium-diffusion-nuclear-decay/
The tough part is finding a creationist who understands the material and would be willing to discuss it.
Thus thus the wrong applications may be applied which has nothing to do with the test method validity.
Now how do you know whether the isotope Pb-206, came from U-238 decay or a U-235 fission?
Thus the nuclei resulting from the fission of uranium-235 would have atomic masses around 94 (zirconium to molybdenum) and around 141 (barium to cerium) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission .The two nuclei produced are most often of comparable but slightly different sizes, typically with a mass ratio of products of about 3 to 2, for common fissile isotopes.
Please review post #443.
It was the flood that caused the extinction of dinosaurs.
Really? Where? I mean, that nuclear bomb exploded over Hiroshima more than a few years ago. And nuclear powers stations still work. And my GPS is doing quite fine. Atomic theory works.
Really? Then you can cite some mainstream peer review journal cosmology papers that support that comment?The entire belief in modern cosmology disputes dating techniques.
An expanded rate has nothing to do with time changing itself. In a physics acceleration formula time is a constant, which is not to be confused with a measurement of time at different intervals.All of modern astronomy believes the universe expanded at an accelerating rate, yes?
Which is relative to the observer which is on earth for us.We know from experimental data that acceleration causes clocks to slow, yes?
No it is not. Again, time is relative to the observer.Therefore during expansion - which is still continuing - clocks are slowing. That is they were once faster than they are now.
Because your reasoning is heavily flawed.So why do you then refuse to accept the only logical conclusion? That decay rates were faster in the past than they are at present?
Really? Then you can cite some mainstream peer review journal cosmology papers that support that comment?
An expanded rate has nothing to do with time changing itself. In a physics acceleration formula time is a constant, which is not to be confused with a measurement of time at different intervals.
Which is relative to the observer which is on earth for us.
No it is not. Again, time is relative to the observer.
Because your reasoning is heavily flawed.
It is clear from the foregoing that you do not understand relativity theory. Consequently all of your conclusions are at best suspect and at worst completely wrong. Actually, at worst, your response falls into the class introduced, I think, by Fermi of "Not even wrong".How many peer reviewed articles about clocks changing under acceleration would you like me to cite?
And yet you know clocks change under acceleration. And yet you have to add 96% Fairie Dust to your astronomy because the physics as we know it won't fit without sledgehammering it into place.
Which is a cop-out, because the twin also notices no change. Are you denying that change occurred for the twin?
So are you agreeing then that time changes relative to each observer, and is not the same from frame to frame?
Are you refusing to accept that clocks change under acceleration according to experimental data? Even if from within the frame no change is detected?
Or you just refuse to accept the truth, even when you know it is right in front of your eyes.
It is clear from the foregoing that you do not understand relativity theory. Consequently all of your conclusions are at best suspect and at worst completely wrong. Actually, at worst, your response falls into the class introduced, I think, by Fermi of "Not even wrong".
Because your misunderstanding is so deep and so off target, I don't even know where to begin in trying to demonstrate your errors. I'll give it some thought and see what I can zero in on, if anything. However, it's as if you had said "Well clearly planes cannot fly, for we never see an owl with a jet engine."I dont think you understand it, which is why none of you can never explain how I am wrong, just simply claim that I am without justifying anything - because you have no science in which to do so and we both know it.
The entire belief in modern cosmology disputes dating techniques.
All of modern astronomy believes the universe expanded at an accelerating rate, yes?
We know from experimental data that acceleration causes clocks to slow, yes?
Since the twin ages slower -
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?