Deep Time

[-57]

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.

Problem with doing that, guys like you tend to attack the individual rather than the scientific contend contained within it.

 

[Ophiolite]

Problem with doing that, guys like you tend to attack the individual rather than the scientific contend contained within it.

If that happens you can report us. So stop equivocating please.

 

[bhsmte]

They're buried.

Maybe next time.

 

[RickG]

Problem with doing that, guys like you tend to attack the individual rather than the scientific contend contained within it.

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.

 

[Derek Meyer]

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. It comes from the studies of crystals and crystal formation and atom theory and radioactivity. And geochemistry.

For example, Pb2+ cant fit into those crystals used for those determinations during crystalisation due to their size. Uranium does fit in, though.

The crystals where Pb does fit in are completely different crystals. So, those are not used. So, in those particular crystals, the only lead found in the crystal lattices were formed after formation of the crystals. It's very basic geochemistry.

Secondly Rick, how do you know what the initial percentage of Pb-206 was in a given sample?

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.

You do realise that crystals are formed in lattices and have chemical formulas and form different crystals and all that...?

 

[Derek Meyer]

Problem with doing that, guys like you tend to attack the individual rather than the scientific contend contained within it.

Really? If asked citations to the specific creation science article it is viewed as an attack?

 

[RickG]

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

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 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.

 

[RickG]

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.

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thus thus the wrong applications may be applied which has nothing to do with the test method validity.

That's what I mean by incorrect hypotheses. I will give them credit for at least measuring something, which is a step above their usual hand wave dismissals of science done by others. Reporting helium concentrations in samples is at least original data.

 

[Astrophile]

Now how do you know whether the isotope Pb-206, came from U-238 decay or a U-235 fission?

According to the Wikipedia article on 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.

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 .

Fission doesn't yield a heavy fragment with an atomic mass of 206 (lead-206) and a light fragment with a mass of about 29 (silicon or aluminium).

A diagram of the 'fission product yields by mass for thermal neutron fission of U-235 shows a two-peaked distribution with the low-mass peak from atomic masses about 90 to about 110 (zirconium to cadmium) and the high-mass peak from about 120 to about 150 (tin to samarium).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Please review post #443.

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?

Therefore during expansion - which is still continuing - clocks are slowing. That is they were once faster than they are now.

Since the twin ages slower - his decay rate is also slower than before and during his acceleration. He aged faster - and his decay rate occurred faster before and during his acceleration. The twin noticed no changes - yet we are both aware that changes occurred regardless if he could measure them or not.

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?

Since expansion began faster than c and has only continued to increase - then any corrections must be done exponentially. What you measure as a second today - was not a second 100 years ago - since acceleration has continued to increase.

The twin as he accelerates has no idea at all that he is accelerating, his clocks and rules indicate no change - yet everyone here that understand Relativity is also aware that things changed regardless if he could measure those changes or not.

If you accept relativity you have no choice but accept decay rates occurred faster in the past than they do today - which invalidates any claims you might make regarding the age of anything. Not that I expect you to accept the science you claim to follow, but you do claim to follow science, but since the real science invalidates your beliefs, i expect you to know reject it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It was the flood that caused the extinction of dinosaurs.

Agreed - the Flood that happened before the time of Moses, when the earth became desolate and waste and wrapped in darkness. The fact you cant find one single human skeleton with them, or even near the same layer of strata, is of course ignored by those that refuse to translate the Bible correctly.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

GPS clocks run slower than earth clocks. If you measured radioactive decay by GPS clocks you would not get the same answers now would you?

So then why do you then refuse to accept that in a universe that began acceleration faster than c, that clocks today tick slower than clocks in the past?

Because it would not conform to your system of beliefs to accept science, even if you claim to then follow it.

 

[RickG]

The entire belief in modern cosmology disputes dating techniques.

Really? Then you can cite some mainstream peer review journal cosmology papers that support that comment?

All of modern astronomy believes the universe expanded at an accelerating rate, yes?

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.

We know from experimental data that acceleration causes clocks to slow, yes?

Which is relative to the observer which is on earth for us.

Therefore during expansion - which is still continuing - clocks are slowing. That is they were once faster than they are now.

No it is not. Again, time is relative to the observer.

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?

Because your reasoning is heavily flawed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Really? Then you can cite some mainstream peer review journal cosmology papers that support that comment?

How many peer reviewed articles about clocks changing under acceleration would you like me to cite?

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.

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 relative to the observer which is on earth for us.

Which is a cop-out, because the twin also notices no change. Are you denying that change occurred for the twin?

No it is not. Again, time is relative to the observer.

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?

Because your reasoning is heavily flawed.

Or you just refuse to accept the truth, even when you know it is right in front of your eyes.

 

[Ophiolite]

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".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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".

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.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

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."

 

[Loudmouth]

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?

Not within the same inertial frame of reference, no. Since the rocks we are dating have been in Earth's inertial frame for the entire history of both the rock and the Earth, the rocks are valid clocks for the age of the Earth.

You still can't seem to understand that there is no golden frame of reference that everything else is compared to. All frames of reference are equal. The Earth's frame of reference is just as valid as the frame of reference in a distant galaxy.

Since the twin ages slower -

In this example, the twins are in different frames of reference. This is not the case for rocks and the Earth. Your analogy does not apply.